Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Senate Committee Asks Pentagon IG To Probe Signal Chat Incident; Trump And White House Tout New Tariffs As Signal Chat Fallout Persists; U.S. Judge Orders Trump Administration To Preserve Signal Messages Discussing Yemen Attack Plans; White House Pulls Stefanik Nomination To Be U.N. Ambassador. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired March 27, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: -- just be the ones giving commencement speeches and bringing happiness to all of us.
[16:00:04]
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST : You got to make sure, one, the graduates are awake. You know, sometimes they have a little bit of a night -- the night before, you know. You got to make sure you bring the energy.
KEILAR: I don't know, I wasn't about that.
JIMENEZ: That's true. I don't know. I've heard -- I've heard, I've heard.
KEILAR: All right.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's the signal versus the noise.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
The Trump administration's Yemen attack security breach center stage in federal court this hour, as the White House is trying to shift the focus and drown out the controversy.
Plus, new warnings that car prices could skyrocket and sooner than you think, under the president's newly announced auto tariffs. Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro will join us live.
And the president pulls Elise Stefanik's nomination to be U.N. ambassador, saying he doesn't want to take the chance of losing her seat in the narrowly divided Congress.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Thursday.
At this hour, the last thing the White House seems to want to talk about is signal. But at this hour, an emergency hearing is set to begin on a lawsuit alleging the national security team group chat broke the law because their chats could be automatically deleted with no backup.
And over on Capitol Hill, the top Democrat and the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, they want the acting inspector general at the Defense Department to investigate this breach and tell them whether classified information was included.
And here at CNN, we are reporting there are new questions in the defense and intelligence community about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's judgment after he put incredibly detailed information about strikes in Yemen into the group chat. They tell us, quote, the egregious actor here is Hegseth, one former senior intelligence official told our CNN team. He's in the bullseye now because he put all this out there on a Signal chat.
Now, the White House would really, really like to change the subject.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If they have factories here, they're thrilled. If you don't have factories here, they're going to have to get going and build them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Was -- that was President Trump Wednesday evening, announcing 25 percent tariffs on imported cars and car parts, a significant escalation in this tariff trade war over a week before, we thought the tariffs were supposed to go into effect.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We're going to make sure that American workers are put first, and we're ending the unfair trade practices that have been hollowing out our middle class for decades. And I would just like to emphasize these auto tariffs yesterday are a big deal for auto workers in the industry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The White House much more interested in changing the subject today than engaging on the questions that are still swirling about whether anyone will face any consequences for the group chat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: We have never denied that this was a mistake, and the national security advisor took responsibility for that. And we have said we are making changes. We are looking into the matter to ensure it can never happen again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And yet the questions persist.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JERRY MORAN (R-KS): I can't see any rationale for the kind of conversation that took place over Signal for not taking place in a more secure manner than that. I think that's hard to explain.
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): I'm worried about everybody and how they have handled this signal controversy. Does it concern me? Hell yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And it is not just people like those two Republican senators that you saw there. Take a look at these comments from Barstool Sports' Dave Portnoy. He's the kind of social media personality whose male fans helped propel Trump back to the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVE PORTNOY, FOUNDER, BARSTOOL SPORTS: Trump you may love Michael Waltz. You love Pete Hesketh. You may love these guys. Somebody has to go down. To me, it's Michael Waltz. You can't pooh-pooh it. You can't downplay it. You have to sit up there and be like, holy shit, this is a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) up of epic proportions. There will be accountability.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: It does beg the question, where is this guy when you need him?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I love to fire people that didn't do their job. I fired a lot of people that didn't do that. I fire them. You didn't do your job. I'm sorry. Say hello to your family. You're fired. Get out!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Where is that guy?
All right, let's go first to CNN's chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid. She is covering that emergency hearing on the Signal group chat that is beginning this hour.
Paula, wonderful to have you.
Talk a little bit about what this lawsuit is focused on, because, of course, there are a couple of different laws that could potentially have been broken, violated somewhere here. This focuses on a specific one.
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right, Kasie. This hearing actually just got underway a moment ago. And it's significant because this is the first time that this controversial Signal chat has been the subject of a federal court hearing.
And here, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization has sued the Trump administration, alleging that it has violated federal laws that require agencies to preserve federal records. And they say that because they're using this encrypted app Signal that has an auto delete feature, that at least one member of that chat had enabled as possibility, they are not preserving these records properly.
Now, it is possible to preserve a Signal chats by screen grabbing them, but they call this quote a five alarm fire of government accountability.
Now, in the Justice Department's response, they pushed back and they say, look, this group has not proven irreparable harm. There should be no temporary restraining order. And they even included a two sworn declarations saying that they are taking steps to locate and preserve these messages.
Now, Kasie, I want to note one other thing. This is all being heard in front of Judge James Boasberg. He is an Obama appointed judge who has in recent days been targeted by President Trump for his handling of a totally separate case related to Trump's use of a sweeping wartime authority to deport individuals they allege are affiliated with a Venezuelan gang.
Now, if you look at Boasberg's record, he has extensive experience in national security in these kinds of records cases, there's no indication he has a pattern of partisanship.
The lawsuits, though, like this, this can be difficult for outside groups to succeed, but as of now, there is no indication that the Trump Justice Department is going to open a criminal investigation into this matter. That is something that has really surprised experts. So civil litigation may be the only chance for recourse here.
Now, it's unclear when well get a decision, but they're moving very quickly. We could get an answer in a matter of days.
HUNT: Well, Paula, it may have surprised experts, but I don't think it surprised any of those of us who cover campaigns, elections and politics based on what we know about Donald Trump.
Paula, thanks very much for that.
All right. Our panel is here.
Annie Linskey, White House reporter for "The Wall Street Journal"'; Jim Sciutto, CNN anchor, chief national security analyst; former Republican House Speaker Patrick McHenry. I still love that. You don't know.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: And the Democratic state senator, Mallory McMorrow of Michigan, she's also the author of this new book, "Hate Won't Win".
Thank you all for being here.
Congratulations on the book. I know you've been running it down the east -- up and down the Eastern Seaboard, so we're glad you made it here.
Jim, let me start with you on this conversation, because I know you've been pursuing some new lines of reporting in terms of how people are thinking about this. I mean, the White House clearly eager to change the subject. They wanted to talk about tariffs. They wanted to talk about other things.
The national security community, it seems, is still very focused on it.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: The facts remain the same after a breach such as this. And it was a breach. I've spoken to senior U.S. military officials currently serving who said that this information, under any circumstances, is classified and at the time of sharing was classified because it relates to the safety of U.S. service members deployed abroad.
You would think in the wake of a breach like this that you might have beyond any criminal view -- review or investigation, a change to protocols to make sure it doesn't happen again, particularly in the Pentagon, since we know that only a few days before warning went around, that signal is not secure. But I'm told that no changes to security protocols are planned at DOD because as one senior military official put it to me, quote, that would be construed as admitting wrongdoing.
So, you have the embarrassment or the political factor overriding any drive to impose new protocols to prevent a breach like this from happening in the future.
HUNT: Thats remarkable. I guess part of me also is kind of wondering, well, like, didn't the protocols already say you weren't supposed to do this?
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
HUNT: Like, maybe they just need to follow the protocol that's already written down.
ANNIE LINSKEY, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: I mean, I think the Chinese and the Russians must be very thrilled to hear about your new reporting, because, I mean, this is not, you know, while it's an encrypted app, it's not completely secure. And certainly, you know, members of the intelligence community have something more sophisticated at their fingertips than this, which, you know, you and I use Signal. I mean, I think a lot of members --
HUNT: It's the best option for I think those of --
LINSKEY: I mean, the idea --
HUNT: Like, these are not laypeople.
LINSKEY: You know, I really think about, you know, when covering the Biden administration, the Biden White House, a lot of officials wouldn't even -- like text wasn't even enabled on their phone. And it just wasn't a possibility of communicating this way. And part of it was because of the Records Act.
And the other point here, I will say, is the Records Act, the Presidential Records Act has gotten so many people in trouble in the last few years. It's really kind of remarkable.
SCIUTTO: Also to speak to the sensitivity of information. When I had a security clearance on far less sensitive information, you would walk into the SCIF to just read materials such as this, as opposed to even communicate.
And communication provides a means to intercept, right? Because when you send a Signal, that's -- that's -- it gives an opportunity to Russia or China to intercept.
[16:10:02]
But just to read the material, we went into the SCIF for understandable security reasons.
HUNT: Yeah. Well, I mean, the loose lips sink ship posters are from, you know, 80-plus years ago now.
Mr. Speaker, can you talk a little bit about what we have seen from Republicans on the Hill in reaction to this? Because obviously, you've seen a number of people who defend Donald Trump to the nth, you know, to the end of the earth say, you know, nothing to see here. Move on.
But you heard Jerry Moran there. You heard Lisa Murkowski there. There's also a bipartisan push in the Senate Armed Services Committee to do more about this. I mean, is it plausible to say that if Democrats had done this when Republicans were in charge, that this would be how it would be handled?
PATRICK MCHENRY, FORMER SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Sure. This is called politics. So, the first thing is let's admit the obvious.
HUNT: Yeah.
MCHENRY: A mistake was made. Who made the mistake? Well, the person who started the text chat. So, Mike Waltz has some responsibility.
I think Mike Waltz is a high quality individual. His experience in national security community predates the Trump administration, dates back more than 25 years. But a mistake was made.
The additional mistake was the person who contributed the more sensitive information. So, when we say all things are equal here, and by even having Signal on your phone, you should basically be put under the prism is like a little out of hand. Okay? Whether it's a Republican or Democrat.
Easy for me because it's a Republican saying this about a Republican though. So -- but admit the obvious and then move forward and say how things will change. That is the normative thing to do.
There are major things happening here in Washington. This is not it. A mistake was made. Start moving forward on the next thing. Thats the important thing.
MALLORY MCMORROW, AUTHOR, HATE WON'T WIN: I would add, though. I mean, to counter a little bit that this is not the most important thing happening. This is some of the most sensitive and highly classified information that our leaders have access to. And if they cannot be bothered to treat this information with secrecy and responsibility, what does that mean for the rest of our information, for our tax returns, for our Social Security numbers?
MCHENRY: In fairness, we're like -- we're like 30 years into data breaches by the federal users. As a federal employee, my stuff has been hoovered up by China and every nefarious actor. It's just unfortunate.
Our federal government does a very poor job of managing our information. And what we're seeing here is an amateurish mistake here. So, move like we need to admit reality and move forward here.
MCMORROW: And lead from the top and change it all the way down.
SCIUTTO: The thing is, though, that there is sensitive information. My -- my information has been hoovered up multiple times by China as well, like you, personal and otherwise, is that there are particular laws and regulations that relate to classified information and there are legal consequences. And we could recite the list of very prominent public officials, David Petraeus among them, right, who paid legal penalties for mishandling classified information.
It's a different -- it's a different standard because it's a -- it's a different level of risk.
MCHENRY: Yes. But we also need to update the laws here. The Presidential Records Act did not contemplate personal computers, much less the way we use our iPhones, in a very gross and egregious way in this town.
LINSKEY: I think that is a great point because, as I was saying earlier, I mean, you know, the Biden administration got caught up in issues with the Presidential Records Act, the Trump administration, Donald Trump got caught up in -- in the same sort of you know, legal morass. And you have to begin to look at it and think, maybe this law is just so difficult to follow, that there -- you know, there could be changes to it that would make it a little bit more, more modern at least.
SCIUTTO: Well, there's that and then the Espionage Act, right?
LINSKEY: Yeah. And that's a separate thing. Thats a separate thing.
SCIUTTO: To national security information.
HUNT: Yeah. So, let's talk for a second about Pete Hegseth versus Mike Waltz here, because you have seen Waltz really come in, as you noted, because he was the one, the only reason we found out about any of this. But then it was Hegseth who went on to really make what's arguably the bigger mistake. So, the reporting from our colleagues, Jim, is this, quote, many of
his orders, access orders are verbal and based on gut instinct rather than a deliberative, multi-layered process, people familiar with his method said. He's a TV personality, one of the sources said. A general officer makes a recommendation and he's like, yeah, yeah, go do it. The former defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, would never be like, yeah, yeah, go do it. He'd be like, we'll take it under consideration. This is all indicative of his utter inexperience, another official said.
I personally, you know, as a -- the Capitol Hill reporter and political reporter in me, can understand why they want to defend Hegseth, because that's a position that has to be confirmed by the Senate. And he barely got through. And Mike Waltz or national security advisor in general doesn't have to -- to deal with that.
But what does this say about Hegseth in particular?
SCIUTTO: Well, listen, I don't want to say anything personal about him, but it does show you why in previous administrations, Democrat and Republican, you had quite senior level people with many years of experience at a high level.
[16:15:03]
I mean, the previous occupant of that job had been a four star general, right, who had been through multiple years where he was quite used to the interagency process and following protocols and so on, because he understood the, the, the reasoning behind them. Right. I mean, if you commanded forces in the field and of course, Pete Hegseth did -- did military service as well. But if you've commanded forces in the field during wartime, as someone like -- like Lloyd Austin, did you know that the consequences of risking that information.
HUNT: Yeah.
Now, let's, Mallory, not pretend that Lloyd Austin didn't make mistakes as defense secretary. He had his own kind of time in the barrel for -- for things that that he did.
But more broadly speaking, I mean, when you spoke to when I spoke to Republican sources on the hill, as Hegseth was being pushed through, I mean, quite frankly, they had reservations that they were not willing to express in public because they didn't want to cross Trump, because to Jim's point -- yes. I mean, not only is it what you learn when you if you are a four-star general in the field, but its also a massive, sprawling bureaucracy that deals with billions and billions of dollars?
MCMORROW: I think that's right. And this is indicative of an attitude and part of why Trump won reelection was convincing the American people that institutions are fundamentally broken, and therefore we should blow them up.
So, we are no longer considering whether or not people are truly qualified to be in these positions. This is indicative of an ethos that is running wild through the administration that Elon Musk has also brought in.
Move fast and break things may work in tech. It may work in developing a social media app when you have other options. It does not work when you are one of the most powerful men in the entire world, commanding the United States troops.
HUNT: Ebola prevention, anyone? Anyway.
All right, up next here, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro will be live in THE ARENA as the president shocks U.S. allies and Wall Street with a dramatic escalation in his global trade war.
Plus, the new warning from the Trump administration to California Governor Gavin Newsom.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:26]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back inside THE ARENA.
Another day, another tariff. That has been the mantra so far in the Trump administration. The president announcing new 25 percent tariffs on cars and car parts coming into the United States. It's a move that economists warn will lead to higher prices.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK ZANDI, CHIEF ECONOMIST, MOODY'S ANALYTICS: It means higher prices and it means fewer jobs. I think if the -- if the tariffs are imposed as articulated and stay in place by this time next year, the typical car price will be somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 more. So, you know, right now, the average car -- car price is 50K, so that means you're going to be paying 55K to 60K as a result of the tariffs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. I'm joined now by White House senior counsel for trade and manufacturing, Peter Navarro.
PETER NAVARRO, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR COUNSEL FOR TRADE AND MANUFACTURING: Hey, Kasie. How are you?
HUNT: I'm well. Thank you so much for being on the show.
Let's start with what you heard right there. Are Americans going to pay more for cars now?
NAVARRO: No, and here's what's going to happen. And by the way, look, I love Mark Zandi. I know him well. I've known him for, I don't know, 20 years.
But he was like the chief economist for Obama and Biden and, you know. His numbers are numbers and damned lies and statistics. But here's -- here's what's going to happen here. The problem we face and the problem were trying to solve, and the reason why we're putting tariffs on auto parts as well, is that we move from a manufacturing nation with a strong industrial base to simply an assembly line with low wages for countries like Germany and Japan.
We import -- we have 16 million cars we buy every year. Half of them, half of them are imports. The other half -- half of that half is foreign made. So, we're down to virtually nothing.
Now, the good news is -- we've got auto plants running at about 65 percent of capacity, which means there's just plenty of room to run. And there's going to be an already a great race to fill those factories. And we're going to see domestic production rapidly replace this foreign content.
We're going to see wages go up. And I think it's important to always look at our policies broadly.
HUNT: So --
NAVARRO: The tariffs are going to yield -- let me just make this one point. The tariffs are going to yield a little over $100 billion on autos alone. We have to get the tax cut.
And one of the things that tax cuts are going to do is provide tax relief for anybody who buys a car, which is made in America. At the same time, we're lowering gas prices and $1 lower of gasoline is about $1,000 more in people's pockets. So, we're looking at the big picture.
HUNT: So, I take -- I take all of that. I understand the big picture argument. But again, if you're an American family and you need a new car, is this weekend the best weekend to go out and get one? Because I understand you're making a long term play, but I don't understand how you can plausibly say that in the short term, car prices are not going up.
NAVARRO: Yeah. So, what's going to happen is we saw this with the China prices. The reason why -- why -- why I laugh as you said that is because we've seen these concerns before. Weve seen people like Mark Zandi talk about these massive inflationary shocks and all of that. But the reality is the foreign producers are going to absorb most of this. Thats what's going to happen.
And what the -- as we're -- as we're moving forward, we're going to have a lot of domestic content. We're going to see an infusion of investment come in. We've already had $3 trillion across our economy and we feel really good.
[16:25:01]
I mean, the big issue here and is simply that we've got to get our manufacturing back, both for defense purposes and for economic reasons. And it's the cheating of countries like Germany, Japan, Korea in the automobile space, which have stolen jobs. I mean, we've lost -- we've lost almost 100,000 factories collectively and over 5 million manufacturing jobs from this trade cheating.
HUNT: So -- NAVARRO: And the president feels very strongly that auto, steel and
aluminum are pillar industries of our national security. And this is what we've got to fix. And it's time to do that.
HUNT: So let me ask you about -- I'm glad you raised jobs as part of this. Have you gotten a guarantee from the Big Three and especially from the American auto companies, that the increased costs that they are going to bear, especially with the tariffs on car parts, are not going to result in them cutting jobs because often Americans know companies respond to increased costs by cutting their own costs, which is mainly in jobs.
So, are these American companies going to refrain from cutting jobs as they try to respond to this?
NAVARRO: So, so the first thing that's really important to understand is that the Big Three so-called American companies, GM, Ford, Stellantis, they're not -- they're not really American companies. In fact, they have --
HUNT: General Motors isn't an American company?
NAVARRO: They have. Well, in this sense, Kasie, this is really interesting.
HUNT: Ford isn't an American company?
NAVARRO: Hang on. Hang on.
HUNT: They built Ford tough. It's --
NAVARRO: Kasie, go on, answer the question. This is really interesting.
HUNT: All right.
NAVARRO: They have less American content in their cars than some of the other companies that are operating in America, like Honda. Okay?
So, when you ask about --
HUNT: So, Honda's more American company?
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: -- what you have to do, you've got to look at Honda. You've got to look at Toyota. You look at all of these car companies and say what's going to happen?
Every single one of them now have a massive incentive to produce here domestically. And I don't mean assemble. I mean produce.
I mean, auto parts, engines, engines, transmissions, the drivetrain, the powertrain. The wages for the powertrains alone are $10 to $20 more per hour. And you know where almost 50 percent of the engines in American cars
are made. It's not here. It's Germany and Japan and Hungary and Korea. And we only make 19 percent of the engines that go into our cars.
That's a product of German and Japanese industrial policy, which retains their higher wage jobs for their country. And they're just sticking it to us.
So, if you look at this, everybody's going to be better off in America through this policy. And I'm telling you, Kasie, what you're going to see is a race. It's a golden age race of all these different auto companies to get production here.
Auto parts autos here. Enough of this foreign content where were just simply assembly lines.
So, let's see what happens as the boss says. But I can assure you, when you put all of the Trump plan together, consumers and workers, American deplorables are going to be much better off than they were under Biden and much better off than they will be if we hadn't acted.
HUNT: You have very specifically outlined all of the things that are going to get more expensive in the short term here. So here's my question to you. You are making --
NAVARRO: I haven't -- I haven't said that. What I have said --
HUNT: Well, what I'm saying is you --
NAVARRO: -- is that 25 percent tariff is going to be absorbed in a lot of different ways.
HUNT: Okay.
NAVARRO: And we're going to race to get more production here. And on net, consumers are going to be better off.
I mean, look, we're going to put that auto loan deduction right in the tax bill. That's going to be worth thousands of dollars for people.
HUNT: If it's going to pass. OK.
NAVARRO: We're going to lower gas prices, that's money, too. We're going to have a tax cut more broadly using the tariffs from China, steel and aluminum, reciprocal tariffs, auto tariffs to give the biggest tax cut in American history.
You know, the last time we gave a tax cut, everybody said, oh, tax cuts for the rich whatever. The data showed it was several thousand dollars per household per middle class household that benefited from those tax cuts. And if we don't deal with the tax cut now, we let that lapse, it's going to be a terrible recessionary shock. And that's what we'll be talking about. And that will be the Democrats' fault.
HUNT: Sir, before I let you go, I do want to ask you, do you have Signal on your phone? NAVARRO: No, I'm not going. You guys, you guys beat that story to
death. I'm just watching. I remember during the campaign, there was like certain stories --
HUNT: Would you ever use Signal for government business?
NAVARRO: I don't use signal. I -- look, I -- I, look -- you beat that story to death on the campaign trail. I would, I would ask to rethink --
HUNT: Wait, this story wasn't --
(CROSSTALK)
[16:30:00]
NAVARRO: The American people don't care about that, but they do care about this story. And I'm glad you had me on today. I'm just delighted to be on.
But no, I'm not going there. It's not my lane, not my job. And I'm here to talk about making jobs for the American people. And that's what President Trump wants to do.
HUNT: All right. So, I very much appreciate your time. Thank you very much for being here. I hope you come back.
NAVARRO: Anytime, Kasie.
HUNT: Peter Navarro, thank you.
NAVARRO: Bye-bye.
HUNT: All right. Up next here, the White House abruptly pulling the nomination of a would-be cabinet official. New details on why Elise Stefanik is now not going to be the ambassador to the U.N.
Plus, what California -- the California governor is now telling CNN about a new warning from the Trump administration. We'll bring you new details.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:35:05]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
There is breaking news from that federal hearing on the lawsuit involving the national security team group chat.
CNN's chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid is back with us.
Paula, what have we learned from the judge in this case?
REID: So, Kasie, we had a decision here. Judge James Boasberg ordering the Trump administration to preserve all Signal messages between March 11th and March 15th. Now, those dates are significant because those are the dates when Trump administration officials were on a Signal chat with a reporter from "The Atlantic" discussing military strikes in Yemen.
Now, this came after a lawsuit alleging that the administration was violating federal records laws because they're using this encrypted app that has auto delete features that were enabled by at least one person, one official, in that chat. It's not clear that they were properly preserving these records.
During this hearing, the Justice Department said it is trying to track down these records and properly preserve them. And the judge described this decision as a, quote, compromise.
Now, Kasie, Judge James Boasberg, he is an Obama-appointed judge who has come under attack repeatedly in the past few weeks from President Trump. And just last week, he oversaw a separate case related to Trump's sweeping use of a wartime authority to deport people he says were part of a Venezuelan gang.
Now, what's interesting is during that case, one of the arguments the administration made was that they did not have to comply with an initial order Boasberg made because he made it from the bench, so he did an oral order. They have argued that that didn't carry the same weight as a written order. So, he quipped during this hearing --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Can I stop you for one -- for one second and just ask you because I'm sure this is going to come up right. In the Venezuelan case, the question was, are they going to defy the order? My question in this case is what if they can't comply with it because the messages have been deleted?
REID: Well, there's a process for that. What I was going to say is, he quipped that he was going to put this in writing. I think it's funny that he sort of carrying that strand along to this case.
HUNT: Feels like he has to do that?
REID: I mean, I don't know if I'd make a joke in this context. You could just sort of do it.
But in terms of whether they're going to comply right now, they have to show that they are at least trying, because this group would have to show irreparable harm. And the Justice Department is like, you can't prove that. We're trying to track this down. We've tracked down some of them, not they ultimately cannot -- cannot reveal these text messages. If they cannot retrieve these, that could potentially escalate this controversy because they could be in violation of these records laws.
Now, usually that is something that would be referred to the attorney general. But at this point, there's no indication that the Trump Justice Department wants to get involved in this at all or escalate it to a criminal matter. So, it's going to be really interesting to see what they put in a status report in the next 24 or 48 hours.
HUNT: Paula, also, one more question. One of the things that the -- the Trump DOJ has said to the judge in the other case is that they can't give up the information about the Venezuelans because it includes state secrets. Presumably, they will not have that defense or a similar defense related, you know, available to them, in this particular case, since the White House has been insisting that nothing in this chat was classified?
REID: Yeah. So, here they're going to have a different problem because their first defense is going to be just saying, hey, this is under investigation. The NSC is looking at it. If they're really pressed on whether classified information was mishandled, what they are going to argue and sources close to Hegseth have told me is they're going to argue that he was the originating classification authority, so he declassified it by sharing it on this chain.
They will also argue that everything that was said in that chain was said in a press conference an hour or two later. So that's how they are going to continue to try to defend this and distinguish it from what we saw last week with the sweeping wartime authority and those deportations.
HUNT: All right. Paula Reid, for us -- Paula, thank you very much for answering my on-the-fly questions.
Our panel is back as well as we're joined by Alex Isenstadt, senior political reporter for "Axios".
Alex, I think you can kind of see -- I mean, I was just trying to ask Paula what seemed like the obvious questions that any person listening to this would have to, would, would ask. And you can see the contortion.
ALEX ISENSTADT, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, AXIOS: Yeah. Yeah.
HUNT: Exactly, exactly.
ISENSTADT: The Signal -- the Signal story is not going away for this administration, right? They wanted this Signal story to sort of -- to fade away. They're trying to -- try to reorient messaging towards immigration, which is what you've seen Kristi Noem do today.
But the signal story, it's not -- it's not going away at this point. It's pretty clear.
HUNT: Mr. Speaker, Congressman, you were saying earlier in the show, and I don't necessarily disagree with you about this. Just when you think about your own life and like the sheer number of records, the amount of information that we're all generating as we walk around using our various devices that this law should be updated.
What do you think is the -- like where is the line here? Like what should officials be able to do if you're rewriting that law? And what should stay, not remain not allowed?
MCHENRY: So, we have this problem in the digital era of actually record preservation.
[16:40:01]
This is a broad problem across public and private spheres. We're seeing this with technology outstripping our laws and our regulation. And so, we have to catch up.
Congress has smartly excluded ourselves from records. You know, having served in congress for 20 years, records requirements. But we have obligated the presidential branch, the executive branch, to preserve these documents.
HUNT: Very convenient for you.
MCHENRY: Quite convenient. But it also means you have to have the capacity to communicate effectively and quickly and preserve documents. We have obviously not kept pace in the public sphere with the best options in the private sphere.
So, Signal, yes, there are some limitations for it, but it is one of the best messaging apps in the world. And so we've found that even at the highest levels of our government, they're using the best stuff of the private sector.
We need to fix this. Like there's like a very practical, basic thing. We need to fix this. When Hillary Clinton could mess with her server, I'm not trying to say its equal, but we've had 20 years of debate about stupid stuff around emails and texts and everything else. We got to fix the law and make it abundantly clear you can't screw with these things. I'm sorry -- mess with these things.
HUNT: You're fine. Trust me. You had -- we talked a little bit earlier in the week about the fact that when you serve as speaker pro temp, that meant you're so close to the presidency. There are things that are different for someone of that level. You also, of course, have been a run of the mill member of Congress earlier in your career. You kind of understand the differences in the distinctions.
Can you let us in? I'm not asking you to, you know, sell anybody out or throw anybody under the bus, but is what we saw here where there's a signal -- I mean, is this just like common? Is everybody doing this?
MCHENRY: I think you've seen for the last 20 years in the executive branch texts, other sets of emails, everything else a tandem, a tandem line of communication personal phones and public phones, all those things at the highest level, but at the lowest level, where the average member of congress is, you're basically using your campaign phone to text and email on official business. It is interchangeable.
So, when you go from that setting, like many cabinet officials previously served in Congress, where you have no obligation and you're pretty random person, right, communicating about stuff, it doesn't have the same level of protection, import, impact as your communications now. You have to have a better onboarding process for these high level officials to make it abundantly clear of their obligations. HUNT: That this is the -- this is the real change.
And I mean, it does seem, Mallory, that -- I mean, this is one of the things that this is raising, right? There were accusations for some of these officials coming into it, hey, you don't actually have the experience or understanding to do this job. That was a criticism from Democrats.
MCMORROW: I think that's right. And I have to agree -- the point about members coming in and getting positions of power, and there needs to be changes to the laws. There also needs to be onboarding. We had a meeting in my state legislature in Michigan, where the FBI came in to talk to us about cybersecurity threats, and they advised every member to use a password manager.
One of my colleagues raised his hand and asked, is that typically a part time job, as if it is an intern sitting in a room with passwords on Post-it notes. There's a lot of education that has to happen at every level for elected officials to understand their role, and their responsibility, and why we need leaders who are tech savvy, who come from the private sector, who understand how this works, who can implement policy change that protects people.
HUNT: I will say my husband is like the tech savvy one in our house. I'm not not tech savvy, but he -- you know, we do use a password manager.
MCHENRY: But by the way --
HUNT: Not a person at this.
MCHENRY: -- look at this panel, right in front of this panel, how many phones do we have for all the people? More than the number of people on the panel. So, I mean, we see this is one of the few places in the world where it is very polite at dinner to put both phones on your table.
HUNT: And often, I mean, look around at the diplomat on any given night.
MCHENRY: Oh, yeah.
HUNT: Phones. Phones are out.
I do want to. Briefly. Elie Honig has been kind enough to scramble himself to a camera to help give us a little bit of perspective on this.
Elie, you've been hearing our conversation here. You heard the order from this judge. I mean, the practical question that I have, somebody did turn on auto delete in that chat. Is there any way to get those records back if the judge wants them?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, so first of all, the judge's order today was no surprise because the only goal of a judge in this situation is to try to freeze the status quo as much as possible. And so, not a surprise that the judge issued this order. Let's make sure nothing further gets deleted.
Now, if something has been already deleted. I know from years of working alongside the FBI when I was a federal prosecutor, there are ways sometimes that the FBI can resuscitate things that one might ordinarily think have been deleted. Can a judge order that to happen, though? Probably not.
So, there is a chance that some of those messages that have been auto deleted may actually not be legally recoverable here.
[16:45:01]
HUNT: All right. Elie Honig, thank you again, my friend. Do come back. You got to come down to D.C. We got to do this in person next time. Thank you.
All right. Coming up --
HONIG: Anytime. Quick Amtrak.
HUNT: Coming up next, new details on why the White House is abruptly pulling the nomination for a key Trump ally.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
President Trump today pulling the nomination of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik to be ambassador to the United Nations, writing in a post that he does not, quote, want to take a chance on anyone else running for Elise's seat. It is a nod to the GOP's razor thin majority in the House.
Our panel is back.
[16:50:00]
And, of course, Patrick McHenry, this one is for you. This speaks to the incredibly difficult political realities for Mike Johnson, the speaker of the house, and also a really difficult situation for a fast-rising star in the Republican Party who gave up a leadership post to try to take this job.
MCHENRY: Well, no, no way of getting around it. It's a tight house. It's very challenging under the best of circumstances, to manage the House of Representatives. Mike Johnson has a -- has a really tough challenge. And it's also clear that speaker Johnson was not happy about this announcement of losing another House member, a third house member to the Trump administration, from the beginning.
But I think the clear thing here is this doesn't have anything to do with Elise Stefanik's qualities. She is a fast-rising leader of the Republican Party, will continue to be regardless of title. She's a leader.
She's expressed that from a small perch in the House of Representatives, and she certainly has huge opportunities in the weeks, years ahead. And I think her story is not done, that's for sure. But this is a very odd twist for somebody as successful and as sharp as Elise has shown herself to be.
HUNT: It really shows just how -- I mean, the President Trump has so much riding on the house, passing this massive reconciliation bill that this poses basically an existential threat. What does that say about the chances Republicans have of success here?
MCMORROW: I think they're getting smaller by the day. I mean, you just look down at the state level, the special election in Pennsylvania, that was a stunning upset. A victory for Democrats in a district that Trump won handily, and the writings on the wall.
I mean, we are seeing on the ground in Michigan, people are livid about the overreach of this administration, overreading what they claim to be a mandate. And the Trump administration is now nervous about Stefanik's district, a district that he won handily. That should send a signal to the administration to maybe pull back, but instead they're barreling full force ahead and -- and taking Stefanik down with them.
HUNT: Your new book out this week is called "Hate Won't Win".
And I wanted to talk to you about something we're learning. We got in here at THE ARENA a letter that the Secretary of Education Linda McMahon sent to Gavin Newsom out in California. She wrote this to him, quote: As secretary of education, I'm officially asking you to form this department, whether you remind schools in California to comply with federal law by protecting sex separated spaces and activities. I'm also asking you to publicly assure parents that California teachers will not facilitate the fantasy of gender transitions for their children.
Now, we also took this to Gavin Newsom's office. They say they're aware of the letter and they're going to look into it.
What was your reaction to Gavin Newsom going? You know, he's got this new podcast. He's hosting people like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk, and he's saying things like, this is it the right move for someone who clearly wants to be president in 2028?
MCMORROW: Candidly, I don't think so. I think there is a way to step up and respond and respond to the concerns of parents and Americans without completely changing course. That is something that people have a really sharp radar for, and it comes across as disingenuous.
You know, my mom was a homeschool mom. We know that parents and teachers and schools work best when everybody is working together. But doing a complete 180 is not going to go over well with people.
LINSKEY: Yeah. I mean, look, Newsom is doing something very interesting right now. And to say the least. And he's trying to shed his California liberal label that's affixed to him. And as he looks to the future, I think, look, this is an issue that has Democrats have struggled with and he's trying to sort of plow a new course that puts him squarely in the, you know, closer to the center of the country and a little bit closer to where the polling is on this issue.
HUNT: Yeah. Alex?
ISENSTADT: Yeah. No, and, and -- and the thing is, is that Newsom, he's been in a bit of a, a bind because he's getting -- his decision to put on Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon and to take this position on transgenders in sports, he -- he's gotten a lot of heat from liberals for it. And you now see him putting on more liberal guests. So he's trying to weave a very tough -- a very tough path here.
HUNT: It's a fine line.
All right. Coming up next here, what is being overlooked today? I'm taking it a little bit personally, but I'm ultimately optimistic. I'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:59:12]
HUNT: The first sights and sounds, baseball's opening day. My beloved Orioles seem to be being overlooked. Almost none of these so-called experts have picked them to win the AL East.
I'm sorry. What? ESPN, CBS, The Score, MLB.com, they all think -- yeah, yeah, we're used to this -- I got to tell you that. They think that it's going to be somebody else. It's going to be the Red Sox or the Yankees.
Did the O's lose one of the best pitchers on the planet? They did. Are they relying on some unproven young stars also? Yes. But can I just say that many of these stars are homegrown and that's why we love them, and they're going to be ready this year.
Let's not forget, this team won 90 games last year. The playoffs were admittedly a little disappointing, but we're going to call it a learning experience.
The bottom line baseball is back, baby. It's the very best time of the year. Let's go O's. I hear they're up 6 to 2 over the Blue Jays.
So, here's to a great -- here's to a great season. We're going to do it this year, boys. We are.
All right. Guys, thank you so much for joining us today. Enjoy opening day.
And "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" with Phil Mattingly filling in starts right now.
