Speaker 1: And, Kaitlan, you also have some new reporting on the president removing the security detail of yet another former member of his first administration.

Speaker 2: KAITLAN COLLINS, The Washington Post": Yes, Wolf, I'm hearing a lot of concern from people who worked for Trump in his first term, as they are watching what is happening to people like John Bolton and now like Mike Pompeo, where Trump has stripped them of their security details that they had enjoyed and continue to enjoy after they left office because of a threat posed against them by Iran. And a very real threat, as we noted, when this happened on Tuesday, just hours after Trump took office, he ordered Ambassador John Bolton to have his Secret Service protection taken away from him, even though those threats very much still remain, as we found out from a Justice Department filing not long ago, just a few years ago. They said there was an Iranian national who was plotting to have him killed in the United States. And now we have learned that Mike Pompeo, who, of course, served as the CIA director and secretary of state for Trump in his first term in office, has now had his State Department detail terminated as well. Now, these are both people who have been outspoken critics of Trump at times. Pompeo even though has really straddled that line between praising Trump's policies. He criticized him over the classified documents investigation, but largely has not been near as much of a critic as John Bolton's has. But what has been clear to people who served for Trump the first time is that these officials are facing these threats from Iran because of actions they took while serving Donald Trump in his first term. And also, they believe what is happening here, Wolf, is politically motivated.

Speaker 1: Joining us now is two CNN analysts, former deputy director of National Intelligence Beth Sander and former Secret Service agent Jonathan Wackrow. Jonathan, I mean, on the face of this, what is what does this read to you?

Speaker 3: Well, this is a clear signal of the president that he's in control. And he took this direct action because he can. It's well within his power and his authority to remove Secret Service protection or State Department protection at any moment in time.

Speaker 1: Obviously, we're not privy to the intelligence. But the former president, when he was former president, was briefed on the threat from Iran. I mean, it was.

Speaker 3: Same threat. This is the same threat. This is the same group of people that were all involved in the decision to launch that attack that took the life of Commander Soleimani in Iran. The Iranian threat persists today. It has not diminished one bit. It is out there. So what has been accomplished here is that the president has put Ambassador Bolton and Pompeo at significant risk. And what worries me the most is, does this now empower Iranian proxies or Iran to launch an attack here, knowing that we are divided, right? You have the president who is subject to this threat, surrounded by the Secret Service. But other people who were part of that decision now are left vulnerable.

Speaker 1: Beth, is there a real danger? I mean, do you think it could embolden Iranian proxies here?

Speaker 4: I do. But I also want to get back to this point that you made, Anderson, about President Biden taking away former National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien's detail.

Speaker 1: That doesn't make sense to me either.

Speaker 4: Right. So, right. So, so there's a lot of inconsistencies here. And as Caitlin mentioned, or you did, that, you know, Secret Service does some, DOD does some protection, the State Department does some protection, et cetera. And there doesn't seem to be a standard here. To me, the standard should be threat leads to protection for former government officials, because what happens if this kind of assassination takes place? Now, right now, I think that Iran wants to negotiate with us. So maybe President Trump is thinking, ah, the threat is lower now. But Iran does not forget. Maybe they'll try harder to hide their hand, but they're never going to end this fatwa.

Speaker 1: And Jonathan, just to be clear, whatever threat assessment is made by, whether it's the Secret Service or Diplomatic Security with the State Department or any other agency, it's the president's final decision.

Speaker 3: It's the president's final decision. But let's talk about the consequence of that decision, right? As Beth was saying, it really puts these individuals at risk, but there's an order of consequence here where they no longer have protection. So any type of attack against Bolton or Pompeo, it could include their family. It could include their associates. It could include the general public. We don't know the nature or location or type of attack that could be launched against them. So we're not talking about just putting one person at risk. We're talking about potentially putting multiple people at risk, an entire area at risk, just because we potentially have emboldened Iran or their proxies to launch an attack.

Speaker 1: And Beth, Charles Kupferman, who served as deputy national security advisor under Bolton, said that President Trump's decision could have a chilling effect on national security professionals who are currently working for him. He basically says concern about their own security after leaving the White House could negatively impact their work, and as we've talked about with Kaitlan, certainly would impact their willingness to criticize the president.

Speaker 4: It's all bad. It's all bad, Anderson, right? I mean, the entire thing about just dealing with these life and death, this is life and death situations here. Professionals generally, I have to say, I've never really thought about these things as I have been involved in them or watched others make decisions about these things. And I don't think people generally are thinking about themselves or trying to do the right thing. But you certainly don't want to create a situation where people are having these questions. What happens when I'm done with my job? Is my family going to be at risk? Will I have to be in hiding for the rest of my life? That is not a good situation to put national security professionals or anyone in. And I just think that what we need now is probably for Congress or somebody to step in here and have, let's have a system that's based on threat and response.

Speaker 1: Well, I keep thinking about just for the family of these people, how scary it must be. Suddenly you've had round the clock protection, told there's a threat, and then all of a sudden one day they say, look, we got to go. Sorry.

Speaker 3: Look at the story that Bolton has said. He got the word at 12.01 that your protection is going. Think about no time to even prepare, even to get private security, to bring others in. Again, there's an order of consequence to this action.

Speaker 5: You've watched Trump in business over many years, and there was a couple of things I wanted to mention to set this up. In his first day in office, he took down General Mark Milley's portrait. That came down less than two hours after Trump took office. He revoked the security for his former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton. Both of them, by the way, have faced threats from Iran for following Trump's orders during his first term as president, and there's been all sorts of reporting about the extent to which those threats may have been against their life and livelihood. We spoke with a federal employee who works in the DEI department, no longer has a job tonight, saying that Trump's order on ending DEI is vindictive. Do you think that we will see this throughout his presidency, this going after people who have specifically and personally upset him in some way? That's why I'm mentioning all these individuals by name, Pompeo, Bolton, Milley, or does he just make the point and move on?

Speaker 6: Oh, no, I think this is going to be a pattern, and it's going to be a combination of just what you suggested. Some of it's going to be very petty, taking down a photograph or a painting, and others are going to be very serious, where he's going to put people's lives and risk their families, as he's doing with Bolton and Pompeo. It's just, it's not going to stop. He has a history of this. He's done it his entire career. I mean, an example that I remember vividly was Marvin Roffman, an analyst from J.D. Montgomery Scott in the 90s, who criticized the Taj Mahal because it looked like a bad deal on paper before it opened. Within three days, Trump had him fired from his job. So yeah, I mean, it's not going to change. It's going to be continuing for four years, because he's been doing it for 40 years.

Speaker 5: All right, Jack O'Donnell, thank you. Good to see you.