Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
FBI & Pentagon Launch Investigations Into Dem Video; Trump: Don't Want To Extend ACA Subsidies But "May Be Necessary"; Semafor: Trump Urges Paramount To Revive "Rush Hour" Movies. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired November 25, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MAX FOSTER, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): But whilst investigators now believe they know more about the suspected thieves, who they say were known for targeting jewelry stores, questions remain about who might have masterminded the operation.
And still at large? The jewels that were stolen. The tiaras, necklaces, earrings and brooches of the Royalty of 19th century France.
Max Foster. CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: First, President Trump called six Democrats traitors who should be put on trial. Now the FBI is getting involved.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, the FBI is making moves in an apparent investigation of six Democratic members of Congress, requesting interviews with them via the Capitol Police and the Senate Sergeant at Arms. Though it's still not exactly clear, as we come on the air tonight, which law they are accused of violating.
We do know, they angered President Trump by releasing this video message to U.S. service members.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.
SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): You can refuse illegal orders.
REP. CHRIS DELUZIO (D-PA): You must refuse illegal orders.
SLOTKIN: No one has to carry out orders that violate the law. REP. CHRISSY HOULAHAN (D-PA): Or our Constitution.
REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): We know this is hard.
KELLY: And that it's a difficult time to be a public servant.
SLOTKIN: But whether you're serving in the CIA.
CROW: In the Army.
DELUZIO: Or Navy.
HOULAHAN: The Air Force.
KELLY: Your vigilance is critical.
SLOTKIN: And know that we have your back.
CROW: Because now more than ever.
HOULAHAN: The American people need you.
SLOTKIN: We need you to stand up for our laws.
DELUZIO: Our Constitution.
KELLY: And who we are as Americans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Their message was to obey the law. And agree with the video or why they put it out or not, angering the President is obviously not illegal. But he has plainly taken it as an affront to his authority, and has accused those Democrats, subsequently, of seditious behavior, reminding everyone that that is punishable by death, as the President has on Truth Social.
And the Democrats have responded in a joint statement they put out tonight. I'm quoting from it now. They say, We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship.
One thing worth noting tonight is how similar that video that you just saw, where Democrats are telling troops they must refuse an unlawful order, is to the rebuttal that we saw from these Republicans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NICK LALOTA (R-NY): I want to speak directly to the members of the military and the intelligence community. Like you, I raised my right hand because I love this country. I believe in something bigger than myself.
REP. JOE WILSON (R-SC): Freedom is not free.
REP. BARRY MOORE (R-AL): My oath was clear. Uphold the Constitution.
REP. RICK CRAWFORD (R-AR): That commitment is powerful.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We all understand the importance of the chain of command.
REP. JACK BERGMAN (R-MI): Troops. Listen up. Any service member who refuses a lawful order is subject to court martial for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: They're kind of both saying the same thing in those videos.
Republicans, however, have not been accused of sedition by the White House. It does come though, as the Secretary Pete Hegseth has published a memo tonight, addressing the Secretary of the Navy.
And this memo reads, quote, The Department of War has received information regarding potentially unlawful comments made by retired Captain Mark Kelly in a public video. He says, Please provide me a brief on the outcome of your review by no later than December 10.
Now, Senator Kelly is only one of the Democrats, the only one in that video that you saw, who has served long enough that he could actually be recalled to active duty and thus accountable to military law.
In a sign of how unusual all of this is, if that's what you're thinking tonight? Yes, it is. Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, has weighed in. She said that accusing lawmakers of treason and sedition for rightfully pointing out that service members can refuse illegal orders is reckless and flat-out wrong. She says, the Department of Defense and the FBI surely have more important priorities than this frivolous investigation.
My sources tonight include:
The former Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe.
And also, CNN Senior Legal Analyst, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elie Honig.
And also, President Trump's 2020 campaign manager, Bill Stepien.
And Andy McCabe, I want to start with you. Because obviously, when you look at this, for the FBI to start requesting interviews with members of Congress, how high up would that have to go in the chain of command for that to happen, based on your experience?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Yes, it's a really remarkable move, Kaitlan.
[21:05:00]
It shows you that clearly the FBI is investigating, which puts the cart in front of the horse, significantly, because the FBI is not supposed to conduct any investigative activity, based exclusively on First Amendment protected speech, which seems to be all we have here. Couple of lawmakers, politicians, talking about political things in a video. It doesn't really go beyond First Amendment protected speech.
But even if you were to open a case, this is, absolutely qualifies as a Sensitive Investigative Matter, as DOJ refers to it, which means you have to get the approval of your head lawyer in the field office that's opening the case. You have to go to headquarters and get different levels of approval from the substantive kind of division that oversees that work, and also the General Counsel's office. And then DOJ has to be notified about that.
So, there's -- it's really impossible to imagine that this is going on without direct involvement of some of the highest leadership at both the FBI and DOJ.
COLLINS: Yes.
And I should note, we did see the FBI Director, Kash Patel. He was inside the Oval Office today. It's obviously not clear if this was brought up.
But Elie Honig. OK, so let's say they get these interviews. Legally, what is the objective? What -- I mean what -- are they going to ask them how the video was made? I don't really -- what would they ask in the interview?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY: Legally none that I can think of. No legitimate objective.
Let me be clear here. There is no crime committed by either the Democrats or the Republicans in those two competing videos. As Andy McCabe correctly said, they're both protected by the First Amendment. It is right down the middle of First Amendment political speech. It's not even anything adjacent to a crime or that could develop into a crime. I want to make sure people understand. When Trump raises seditious conspiracy, he is so far out of line, it's hard to describe. It's not even close to seditious conspiracy.
The other thing, the people in both videos are protected by something called the Speech and Debate Clause, which says that sitting members of Congress cannot be prosecuted for speech, comments that they make in the course of their official duty. So, even if it got that far, they would have a perfect defense.
Now, look, I have problems with what the Democrats said. I think there's problems there, and they're sending a bad message to the uniformed members of the military. But that's a separate issue. That's a political problem. Criminally, legally, there is nothing here.
COLLINS: OK. So, Stephen Miller comes out, obviously a key advisor to the President, someone you know, and this is what he had to say tonight about how they see this case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEPHEN MILLER, HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISER: They should be held accountable under the law and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for a seditious conspiracy against the United States of America. This is completely open and shut, straight-forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, it doesn't sound like our legal experts see it that way.
BILL STEPIEN, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE POLITICAL DIRECTOR, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: This is politics, right? They're playing politics. I think there's politics being played on both sides. It's a little unseemly, a little gross. But Mark Kelly sent out 12 different fundraising emails today. 12. He's reaping the political benefits of this. There's politics of both sides.
I candidly would like to know if they know something that we don't know, about whether or not President Trump is deploying the military, illegally. They made some pretty bold claims. I like to know if there's something behind those claims.
COLLINS: Yes, they haven't really been able to point to anything of why exactly. The closest, I think, we've gotten to, when we've spoken to these Democrats, about why they felt they need to put the video out, was the boat strikes, basically.
STEPIEN: They can call any member of the military, any rank, any branch, any member, to their office, tomorrow morning, at 09:00 a.m., and even though at 06:00, and there'll be a -- there'll be a military member sitting in the chair.
HONIG: Well--
STEPIEN: If they want to find facts and protect the military, they can do it that way. This is politics.
HONIG: And this gets to why I think the -- let's put aside the fact that Trump's reaction is ridiculous. Let's take that as a given.
Looking at the Democrats' video. There was a really good op-ed written for MSNBC, MS NOW, by a retired lieutenant colonel who said, This is a political stunt that disrespects the members of the military.
Here's why. Let's take that example, the Venezuelan boat strikes, right? I think it's illegal. Most legal experts I've heard from think it's illegal. But there is an official memo provided by DOJ. We haven't seen it. It's classified. But we know this memo exists. It says, They are legal.
What now is a uniformed member of the service supposed to do if they get that order? And as they say at the end of the Republican video, correctly, If you disobey a lawful order, you can get court-martialed, you can get prosecuted, you can get in prison.
So, these Democrats get to pat themselves on the back for being high and mighty. They're not doing any favors to the people in uniform.
COLLINS: Well, there were questions from lawmakers about the justification for the strikes. A lot of them have said--
HONIG: Yes.
COLLINS: --we haven't gotten enough updates. They've gone--
HONIG: All valid.
COLLINS: All of that stuff.
But Andrew McCabe, on this front, Elissa Slotkin, the Senator, said that the request for an interview for her came from the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. What do you believe the reason, if any, would be for having that office be involved here?
MCCABE: That's a really tough one to identify. I mean, as Elie put very well, there is nothing here. There is no allegation of criminal activity here to--
COLLINS: So, can they just say no, to these interview requests? Or how does that work? They can just say, pass?
[21:10:00]
MCCABE: Absolutely, they can say no. This is a request. It's not -- as far as we know, it doesn't -- it's not coming at the sharp end of a subpoena. Nobody is being compelled to provide testimony. They could pick up the phone and say, No, thanks very much. Don't come over. So and I -- they'd probably be well-advised to handle it exactly that way.
Another question I have about it, Kaitlan, is the statement of Kash Patel, earlier today, when he said he's going to let the agents and the analysts of the FBI determine whether there is predication to investigate this.
That's absolutely not how things work in the FBI. Agents request the authority to open a case. A super -- a ground-level supervisor has to approve that. And any first-year supervisor, one of the very first things you learn as a supervisor is, don't ever open a case based on First Amendment activity alone. So, this thing should have been shut down, at the lowest level. But instead, we know it's probably gone to the highest level.
So absolutely, it's politics, and it's concerning to me, because the question is, why is the FBI going along with this?
COLLINS: Well--
MCCABE: They have a lot of good reasons to say, There's nothing for us here.
COLLINS: Yes, and I think that's a good question. Bill, to your point, you said Mark Kelly is fundraising off this. I mean, he wouldn't have anything to fundraise off of, if the President didn't accuse him of sedition, to be fair. I mean, the President's reaction, obviously. He could have just said, Bad video. I don't like it. Unnecessary. But he went way--
STEPIEN: That sounds like him.
COLLINS: --way further than -- yes. He went way further than that.
But to Andy McCabe's point there, it's not just that the President is saying on Truth Social, complaining about something. The FBI is acting at his direction, essentially.
STEPIEN: Perhaps. I mean, I like to think that they're going after facts and asking questions that I think are unanswered.
Slotkin said herself, on Sunday, when she was asked, Do you have any basis for this? She said, No.
I like to know if there's anything there. We can certainly say that there are some untoward reasons why the FBI is knocking on doors. I think, importantly, they're doing this the right way, like there was no 06:00 a.m. door knocks on lawmakers' homes. They went through the Capitol Police. They went through the Sergeant at Arms. They're doing this the right way. And I like to think they're trying to find facts.
COLLINS: I just -- but what would a Republican leader, I think, do, if a Democratic president was like, Hey, I'm going to call the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and I want Chris Wray, calling up and asking--
HONIG: Well, let me -- let me build on that. Think of the fuss that, with some legitimacy, Republican senators are raising over the fact that Jack Smith got two days' worth of their call (ph) records, right? Just the line items, who called who? I think that's a legitimate beef.
But compare that to this. What if FBI agents had said, We want to interview you because you might have committed sedition, you might need to be executed?
Do you think, by the way, as somebody who's worked with Donald Trump and Stephen Miller, do you think they're serious? Do you think they really would stomach and have an appetite to prosecute Mark Kelly and five other members of Congress for sedition and imprison them for life? Or do you think this is just political rhetoric?
STEPIEN: I think there's politics being played on both sides. I think there's some -- some legitimacy being played on both sides. But, yes, this is -- this is politics. It's gross. It's the game.
HONIG: Yes.
STEPIEN: It is what it is.
COLLINS: I mean, I think for President Trump, that answer to that question would be yes, that he -- that is what-- HONIG: You can ask him.
COLLINS: --he genuinely wants.
Thanks everyone, including you, Andrew McCabe. Really appreciate your expertise and insight on this.
Because we have a lot of breaking news ahead here tonight, including what the President just said to reporters, on Air Force One, about his FBI Director, and also his plans to potentially send his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to meet with Vladimir Putin in the coming days.
Plus, we're also learning tonight the reason President Trump abruptly scrapped the reveal of that health care plan that was supposed to happen, yesterday, at the White House.
And also tonight, the President is reportedly using his expanding presidential power to get Hollywood to make a "Rush Hour" sequel. Yes, you heard that right. And the reporter who had that scoop is going to join me.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump told reporters, on Air Force One, that he's against extending the Obamacare subsidies, while also acknowledging that he may end up doing just that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Somebody said, I want to extend them for two years. I don't want to extend them for two years. I'd rather not extend them at all. It may be -- some kind of an extension may be necessary to get something else done, because the un- Affordable Care Act has been a disaster.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: This comes, after just yesterday, the White House signaled an imminent announcement on a major health care proposal, but then they abruptly postponed it until we don't know when.
That comes, as The Wall Street Journal reported today that the call to do so and postpone it came from outside the White House, because House Speaker Mike Johnson had warned the President, and his aides, that when it came to the plan to extend these Obamacare subsidies, the support just wasn't there.
Sources told The Journal that Johnson cautioned the White House that most House Republicans don't have an appetite for extending those subsidies, which expire about a month from tonight.
Hanging in the balance, of course, are the 22 million Americans who rely on them. If the subsidies do expire, and no solution is found on Capitol Hill, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that it would more than double what the enrollees are paying for their health care next year.
When it comes to their plan, Speaker Mike Johnson has told us here, on this show, that Republicans do have a plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: If the government reopened tonight, would Republicans have a plan to address the Obamacare subsidies?
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, we do. We have proposals to--
COLLINS: You would have a plan tonight?
JOHNSON: Yes, we could have that ready immediately, yes.
COLLINS: OK. But a proposal's different than a plan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is Republican congressman, Kevin Kiley of California.
And Congressman, the government's open. Have you seen a plan for health care yet?
[21:20:00]
REP. KEVIN KILEY (R-CA): Well, I've seen the plan that I've offered, along with Sam Liccardo. We have a bipartisan plan to extend the subsidies for two years, in a way that gives us that runway we need for broader health care reform, but save these 22 million Americans from having to see this doubling or more of their health care costs.
And importantly, our bill has reforms in there, as well as pay for, so that we do this in a way that makes the program work better, and also doesn't increase the deficit or are raising taxes. And we're seeing more and more support for this proposal. So hopefully, this is something that could actually be the basis for avoiding what would be a disaster for many of our constituents.
COLLINS: Has any of that support that you've heard so far come from the House Speaker?
KILEY: We have not heard him endorse it yet, but certainly made him aware of the plan. And we're just trying to make this as bipartisan as possible. So we now have, I think, four Republicans and four Democrats on the bill. We're adding co-sponsors every day. I got to give a ton of credit to Sam Liccardo, who's jointly authoring this with me. He has been tireless in building bridges.
And I think that a lot of the concerns that exist among folks on our side of the aisle, this bill addresses those, by targeting fraud and by actually making reforms to this program called Medicare Advantage, where there's been huge overcharges by insurers. By cracking down on that, we're actually paying for the two-year extension. So, that's an important distinction, and I think something that will give it broad bipartisan support.
COLLINS: What did it say to you that the White House was going to unveil their version of a proposal, which we're told it's not set in stone, but we're told it included extending the subsidies for two years, the new income cap, requiring all enrollees to make minimum monthly payments, a new Health Savings Account option.
But what does it tell you that that was a plan that we were told was in the works, they were going to announce at the White House yesterday, and then they postponed it?
KILEY: I don't know the reason for the postponement. But when I heard that, I was like, This sounds pretty good, because it's actually pretty similar to what we're proposing--
COLLINS: Yes.
KILEY: --in terms of setting a reasonable income cap, and providing a mechanism to do away with fraud, and having a temporary extension. So, if this has provided some time to process ideas from other members, then I think that's fine.
But the reality of the situation is there's a sense of urgency here that we need to have. We're talking about a little more than a month. And suddenly, you're going to see independent contractors, small businessowners, small business employees, retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare, are going to see their premiums skyrocket, some people paying thousands of dollars more.
COLLINS: Yes, the clock is ticking. I think a big question is, by the time you all get back to Washington, do you think that there will be unity from Republicans around a plan here?
KILEY: I don't know if there will be unity among Republicans. But I think there will be enough bipartisan support for a deal. And I think that the basic components that we have laid out with our bill are probably a good sort of foundation for it.
Of course, these things need to be negotiated. The President proposed a 700 percent income cap of the poverty level. We propose a 600 percent. So, there's plenty that can be negotiated. But I think that the House will work its will. And there's enough bipartisan support for not doing nothing. There's enough people who say, We're not willing to make our constituents pay this enormous price. That, you're going to see something come together.
COLLINS: I know, the bar does seem low, though, when you say there's enough bipartisan support for not doing nothing in Washington, you know?
And I thought about you actually, when I heard the former House Speaker, Kevin McCarthy. He was doing an interview, and he was asked about Marjorie Taylor Greene, and her shock announcement last Friday that she's going to be resigning from Congress. And he was basically just talking about Congress overall.
And you're someone who had been critical of the House being out of session for as long as it was during the shutdown.
I want you to listen to what Kevin McCarthy said about this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN MCCARTHY, (R) FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: She's leaving Congress, but I don't think that's the end that you'll see about her. And I think, look, I've always believed that any time you have an elected official that's known by three initials, they're effective on what they do. And I found Marjorie to be very effective. But she's almost like a canary in a coal mine.
And this is something inside Congress, they better wake up, because they're going to get a lot of people retiring, and they got to focus. I think keeping members out of Congress. You only get two years to be in the majority. And if the Democrats get you not to work every day for two months? That's losing two months of the majority.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you agree with him that Republicans have lost two months of your majority?
KILEY: Well, yes. And not just Republicans. It's all of us in the House have lost two months of being able to actually represent our constituents. So, I'm glad that former Speaker McCarthy is acknowledging that.
And it remains one of the most mystifying things that I think has ever happened in the history of the House of Representatives, where Speaker Johnson just canceled six consecutive weeks of session, when we were in the middle of a government shutdown. And it's an example of how the House was literally not there for two months, and figuratively, frankly, the House has not been there in a lot of ways in recent months either.
[21:25:00]
And so, I think it is well past time for the House of Representatives to reassert itself and reclaims its authority under Article I.
COLLINS: Do you think a lot of more people are going to be retiring?
KILEY: I don't know. I'm not -- I'm here to fight. I think that we've got big challenges facing the country that we need to work together to overcome, one of which, by the way, I think, is the excessive partisanship that you see play out in things like the government shutdown.
COLLINS: Yes. Well, we'll see if that changes. I'm not so sure.
But Congressman Kevin Kiley, we'll be watching as Congress returns. Thank you for joining us tonight.
KILEY: Of course. Thanks for having me. COLLINS: Up next. There is a top Trump aide, one of his closest advisers, frankly, who is now apparently advising the Kremlin on how to best-approach the President, and it's a leak of a private phone call.
And someone who fled Putin's regime is here to respond to what we're learning about what this call actually looked like.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump is weighing in on the latest version of the Russia-Ukraine potential peace deal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What kinds of concessions are the Russians going to have to make?
TRUMP: They're making concessions. The big concession is they stop fighting and they don't take any more land.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, despite what you heard there, the Ukrainian officials have expressed some optimism about a potential deal to end this war, after the latest round of talks has turned the President's 28-point plan, which heavily favored Russia, into a somewhat pared-back 19- point version.
Now, the details of the plan haven't come out yet. We haven't actually seen them released. There is a Ukrainian official tonight, though, who's telling the Financial Times, they believe what has changed from 28 points to 19, is more favorable to Kyiv.
And this comes as the deadline that was supposed to happen this week, it appears to be sliding from days ago, when the President was publicly urging Ukrainian president Zelenskyy to take a deal. It's a deal, Zelenskyy had said at the time would cost his nation its dignity.
There are still some really big sticking points on this tonight. But it comes, as the President says, the Army secretary, Dan Driscoll, who is meeting with Russian officials in Abu Dhabi today, he's going to be in Kyiv later this week, as the President says, his special envoy and one of his closest advisers, Steve Witkoff, and potentially also his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, are going to be meeting with President Putin in Moscow, next week.
There's also more news on that front tonight, because Bloomberg News reported out a transcript of a phone call that happened, between Steve Witkoff and a top aide to Putin, back in October. The transcript showed how Witkoff was actively advising the Russians on how Putin should best-approach Trump. I'm quoting from the transcript that Bloomberg reported tonight, and it says, quote, I would make the call and just reiterate that you congratulate the president on [the Gaza] achievement, that you supported it... that you respect that he is a man of peace, and you're just, you're really glad to have seen it happen. So I would say that. I think from that it's going to be a really good call, Witkoff said.
Here's how the President responded when he was asked about Witkoff coaching the Russians, on how to approach the U.S. President tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: He's got to sell Ukraine to Russia. That's what he's -- that's what a dealmaker does.
I haven't heard it, but I heard it was standard negotiation, and I would imagine he's saying the same thing to Ukraine, because each party has to give and take.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is Garry Kasparov, a chess grandmaster and political activist who actually fled Putin's regime in 2013. He's also the Founder and Chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative.
And it's great to have you here tonight, just as we're in this moment. On the President, though, there saying that he believes that's just standard negotiating procedure, for Steve Witkoff to tell top Russian aides how Putin should approach Trump. Do you think that's standard?
GARRY KASPAROV, CHAIRMAN, RENEW DEMOCRACY INITIATIVE, PUBLISHER, "THENEXTMOVE.ORG," RUSSIAN CHESS GRANDMASTER: Maybe, by Trump's standards, it's standard. It's not standard at all.
Witkoff is not working for the United States government, for United States' interest. He is working for Donald Trump, and for Donald Trump's personal interest. And of course, he has been cooperating with Russia because the whole deal is about glorification for Trump, of course, and for monetization, also for Trump and for his inner circle.
So, we have to look at this deal and recognize it's not just heavily favoring Russians. It's written by Russians. Most of the deal is ChatGPT translation from Russia. And most of these -- of these points of 20 -- so-called Trump's 28-points plan, have been circulated, months ago.
So, it's basically, it's a demand of Ukraine to capitulate. And it's absolute shame. It's probably indelible stain that will remain for a long time on America's conscience, that United States president have been pushing a heroic nation to capitulate, after many years of successful -- successful defending their land against brutal aggression.
COLLINS: Secretary Rubio denied that it was written by the Russians.
But you're saying the points of this plan, the 28, peace plan that came together recently, was actually floating out there months ago?
[21:35:00]
KASPAROV: Absolutely. It's known. Secretary Rubio just denies things and then denies his denials on a regular basis. So, it's -- there're certain things that you don't even discuss. Yes, it's Russian plan, and it included every demand that Putin had ages ago.
And, by the way, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, in his comments, earlier today, said that it's the -- any attempt to change this 28- points plan will violate the, I emphasize, both the spirit and letter of Anchorage agreement. I read it. That is Anchorage. Trump already sold Ukraine down the river to Putin.
COLLINS: Yes, and there was no agreement that came out of Anchorage.
KASPAROV: Yes.
COLLINS: None that we saw in paper actually--
(CROSSTALK)
KASPAROV: That's exactly right. No, there was an agreement. We just didn't see it.
And when we just look at these points in this, I think everybody talks about territorial concessions. And of course, it's impossible for Ukraine to give up the most fortified defense line, and basically make Kyiv defenseless, based on Putin's promise.
And by the way, it's also on the record, Putin violated every promise he made towards Ukraine, and he has -- he's never honored any agreement that had been signed, regarding Ukraine. Probably other agreements as well, but let's talk about Ukraine -- Ukraine now.
But there's also something important there. It's money. Because when you see Witkoff and Kushner negotiating on America's behalf, you understand, this is not about American interests. This is about Trump's personal interest. Because these guys have nothing to do with U.S. government.
But there are important elements of the agreement, when they talk about money. It's how to use Russian frozen funds, mostly of them are just held in Europe and Belgium, nearly $200 billion. And this agreement basically hand it over to America, read, to Witkoff and Kushner. That's -- that's all about. I mean, the rest is just, it's a smokescreen. It's -- nobody cares about Ukraine territory. It's a real estate deal, and Kushner and Witkoff will have to benefit mostly, at the expense of Ukrainians and European security.
COLLINS: Well, and a Republican congressman was pretty critical of Witkoff going over there, and after this transcript came out, because he said -- he called it a -- Brian Fitzpatrick said, it's a major problem. And one of the many reasons why these ridiculous side shows and secret meetings need to stop. He says, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, needs to be able to do his job in a fair and objective manner.
Can I ask you, though, because I can hear some people from the White House listening to your answer just now, and they may say, Well, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were instrumental in helping broker, getting the hostages home out of Gaza in the Middle East, and what happened there. What would you say to that?
KASPAROV: We're talking about Ukraine. I don't want to mix these two things. Though, for me, it's just this--
COLLINS: I'm just saying that they were -- they might argue, They were effective there, maybe they could be effective here.
KASPAROV: You should talk to Israelis about their effectiveness, and Palestinians.
I know -- I know what I could see and how I could evaluate their role in this deal. They are in this deal to make money. That's it. And Witkoff is not working for American interest. And I would -- if we had functioning Congress, and functioning Senate, so we would have to bring Witkoff and Kushner to testify, and asked many unpleasant questions about their relations with Vladimir Putin, with Russians.
Because also don't -- don't forget another important fact. On the Russian side, it was not a foreign minister. It was Dmitriev. It's known in Russia as the Putin's Wallet. So we had two moneymen talking on behalf of their bosses.
COLLINS: Yes, it can be remarkable to see Jared Kushner potentially in Moscow as soon as next week, meeting--
KASPAROV: Of course. Why not? Again, it's the $200 billion, it's a serious amount of money. And those are the provisions that will end up this -- these funds for the construction of Ukraine under control of Americans. Again, when you -- when we read Americans, we have to understand it's Kushner and Witkoff.
COLLINS: Garry Kasparov, thank you for joining us here tonight. Really appreciate your insight on this.
Still ahead. It came in like a wrecking ball or maybe a chainsaw. But has DOGE quietly stopped existing? There's new reporting that Elon Musk is responding to. We'll tell you the latest, right after this.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, what started with Elon Musk waving a chainsaw to signify DOGE's plans to dismantle the federal government, at least parts of it. It has now led to Trump administration officials acknowledging that the Department of Government Efficiency is no longer a centralized organization.
This comes after Reuters reported yesterday they said that DOGE, as we all knew it, had disbanded months ahead of its actual, expected end date. That's a report that prompted fierce pushback from the White House, including the official DOGE account, claiming that the reporting was fake, and that DOGE would be back in a few days.
Now Musk, who came into the federal government, as DOGE's champion, he weighed in himself to dispute what Reuters was reporting.
But it still remains unclear what form DOGE has taken now that Elon Musk has departed the federal government.
My source tonight is the well-known historian and biographer of Elon Musk, Walter Isaacson, who is here, and once ran CNN as Chairman and CEO, I should note. His new book, "The Greatest Sentence Ever Written," is available now.
And I want to ask you about that book, Walter.
But just given you are someone who spent so much time with Elon Musk, as part of your biography that you were writing, I wonder what you make of how he would approach something that he worked on, so intensively, and that garnered so much attention, how he would look at that, now that he is no longer in the federal government?
[21:45:00]
WALTER ISAACSON, AUTHOR, "THE GREATEST SENTENCE EVER WRITTEN," AUTHOR, "ELON MUSK," HISTORY PROFESSOR, TULANE UNIVERSITY: I think he was probably frustrated about how hard it was to change the federal government.
I think he could have been very effective had he been given the chance, and had he taken the opportunity, to go after the big things he knows about, which is logistics, transportation, Pentagon procurement, how to build infrastructure. And I would have liked to have seen major changes that he could have wrought in those areas. But, as you noted, it didn't work out all that well with him being in government.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, he had such a public falling out with Trump, which was, I mean, maybe everyone expected it, but also no one expected it, if that could be true at the same time.
He was just there, though, at the White House, last week, when the Saudi Crown Prince was visiting. Seeing him as a guest list there -- as a guest on the guest list there, I wonder what you made of his return to the White House, in a tux, at the non-state dinner that was basically a state dinner. What you made of that return?
ISAACSON: Well, I think it's both in President Trump's interest and Elon Musk's interest to repair this.
COLLINS: And in terms of that relationship. I mean, where do you see it potentially going from here?
ISAACSON: I don't know. I've not been following it that closely. Sorry, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Yes, well, I mean, I think it's an unexpected turns for everyone.
And let me ask you about your book, because it's "The Greatest Sentence Ever Written." It's basically a deep dive on the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, obviously one that we've all heard time and time again over the years.
And there are 1,300 words in the Declaration of Independence. I wonder what it was about this, this sentence that captivated you and urged you to write a book about it.
ISAACSON: I think we're about to come to our 250th birthday party as a nation. And as you know better than anybody, we've become so fractured and poisonous in our discourse that it seemed important to me that we find ways, just as we did after Vietnam and Watergate, to celebrate our Bicentennial, to go back to the fundamental values of this country, which most of us accept.
And the clearest statement of the fundamental values of our country, the mission statement, the aspirational statement of our values, is that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. They're endowed with certain inalienable rights, and among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Each -- we kind of know that by heart. But each one of those words had a very specific meaning, and they went through four or five drafts to get that sentence right, with Jefferson writing the first draft, Ben Franklin and John Adams editing it.
And so, I wanted to do a deep dive, because those are very profound words. And it's a short book I did, because it's just one sentence that I'm analyzing. But that one sentence can tell us who we are, who we aspire to be, and maybe who we can get back on track to being as a nation.
COLLINS: Yes, well, I loved, actually, what you wrote about the different drafts and how there were -- it was kind of bouncing between these towering giants of our nation's history. And it's kind of fascinating to think about the, you know, sitting around, striking out words, adding in something that is now, as you just demonstrated there, committed to memory for so many people.
ISAACSON: I'm an old editor, and I just love the way Jefferson said, Oh, could Dr. Franklin please edit this? And they took the edit seriously, and it showed that words matter.
And as you mentioned, first draft begins. We hold these truths to be sacred. And there's Ben Franklin's printer's pen, crossing it out and putting, Self-evident, because he wants to say, Our rights come from rationality, not the dictates of religion. But then the sentence goes on in saying that they derive rights, and John Adams was, Endowed by their Creator with rights.
So you can see in the editing of a half of a sentence how our Founders tried to balance the role of rationality, and the role of Divine Providence in our nation. I wish we could get back to that notion that it's not all or nothing. It's a balance that we have to do on our values.
COLLINS: Yes. It's a great read, and I think everyone should pick it up.
Walter Isaacson, thank you for being here tonight.
ISAACSON: Thanks for having me, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: And the book is called, "The Greatest Sentence Ever Written." It is available now.
Up next for us here on THE SOURCE. President Trump apparently wants to revive the "Rush Hour" movie franchise. Yes, there have been so many questions
about this. My next source has the exclusive report, and we'll talk about it.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: After appearances in "Home Alone 2," "Zoolander," and "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps," President Trump is seemingly getting back into the movie-making business. Sort of.
While there is no expected guest role for the President involved. Semafor is reporting on conversations that the President has had with the owner of Paramount, encouraging him to revive the "Rush Hour" movie franchise. It's a buddy cop comedies that star Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker, first premiered back in 1998, of course, as we all know.
The franchise, though, has been on hold since 2007. The director, Brett Ratner, was accused of sexual misconduct by several women in 2017. Those are accusations that he has denied.
[21:55:00]
But as far as the franchise goes, and where it could go from here, my colleague, Brian Stelter, is reporting tonight that Paramount does plan to distribute a fourth "Rush Hour" film.
My source tonight is the reporter who broke this story for Semafor, the Media Editor, Max Tani.
And great to have you here.
Because I think, that is a question of how the President got involved, and why he apparently so badly wants to see Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker back on the big screen.
MAX TANI, MEDIA REPORTER, SEMAFOR: Yes. Thanks for having me, Kaitlan.
It's really interesting. I also had that question. I was curious whether he was just a fan, or whether there was something else going on. And, as I dug into it, I realized that there's actually a little bit more here. Trump has become more friendly with the director, Brett Ratner, who you just mentioned before. Ratner is also currently working on a Melania Trump documentary. That's been done with the participation of the Trumps. He's been hanging around Mar-a-Lago as well, and has become more friendly with the President. And I think his relationship with Ratner also played into this decision to make the fourth installment of "Rush Hour," after nearly two decades from the last one.
COLLINS: As you were reporting this out, did you learn anything more about that Melania Trump documentary? Because obviously, the first lady is famously very private and very selective about when she's out in public. And I mean, it's premiering, I believe, in January, quite soon.
TANI: Yes, I think that it's generally expected to be fairly friendly. It's expected to be fairly glossy in its treatment of the Trumps. So, as I just mentioned, the Trumps are participating in the documentary.
And it's also worth noting as well that one of the other people who's involved in this remake of "Rush Hour," the original producer, also made a very glossy separate documentary about Trump that premiered at Mar-a-Lago, last year.
So, I think both of these things are kind of coming together to make Trump very excited about the new installments of "Rush Hour."
COLLINS: Yes. And I think I should obviously note and disclose here, Paramount is in a bidding war to buy CNN's parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery, obviously here.
But when it comes to this, and what this could look like going forward. I think it does speak to the level of involvement, for, as you said, to that relationship the President has with Brett Ratner, clearly, through this documentary, on Melania that they are doing. That he would get involved to a level like this, it might surprise some people to hear that there is a presidential level of involvement in it.
TANI: Yes, Trump has shown this time around that, I think, he's a little bit more aggressive -- he's willing to be a little bit more aggressive in his willingness to get involved with media and entertainment.
It's been widely reported that he wants to do a UFC fight on the White House lawn.
He's got this Hollywood council with Mel Gibson, and Jon Voight, and Sylvester Stallone, that's supposed to -- supposedly he's trying to bring back kind of like this macho energy to Hollywood, and those folks have been hanging out down at Mar-a-Lago as well, and were during the transition, I believe.
So, it clearly shows that Trump is more willing to involve himself. And of course, his administration has been taking a look through the FCC, and through other antitrust actions, at kind of shaping some of these other parts of news broadcasts, and even, of course, as we know, threatening some late-night hosts as well over some of the content of their broadcasts.
COLLINS: Yes, I wonder what that says to you and just about -- I mean, we talked so much about how the President views his powers, this term compared to last. And I do think this is actually -- I mean, some people might laugh it off and say, Oh, he's getting involved with "Rush Hour 4." But it does show the level to which he is using his power, in a way that he just didn't simply, at the same level, at least, in term one.
TANI: Yes, in the first term, he actually -- his DOJ kind of tried to stop the AT&T acquisition of WarnerMedia, which, of course, is the parent company of CNN. There was a lot of speculation about why the DOJ unsuccessfully tried to do that. But that was kind of the limits in terms of his willingness for the -- his actual federal government, to get involved.
This time around, we've seen a very aggressive FCC that has looked into almost all of the news networks, and, of course, some of the late-night hosts as well. And so, I think we're seeing kind of this full-court press, both in terms of the pressure from the government, but also clearly the kind of soft power influence.
And Trump has a friend in the Ellisons. I don't think in his first term, he has had as many friends at the kind of top corporate levels of corporate media, the executive level, at least.
COLLINS: Max Tani. Great reporting. And thank you for joining us tonight.
TANI: Thanks for having me.
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: And thank you all so much for joining us tonight. We'll see you back here, tomorrow night, 09:00 p.m. Eastern.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST, CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP: Tonight. A federal escalation.
