Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Administration Accidentally Share War Plans With Journalist; Appeals Court Judge Says Nazis Treated Better Than Deported Venezuelans; Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), Is Interviewed About Trump Officials Discussed War Plans In Unclassified Group Chat; Stock Rally As Trump Softens Stance On Reciprocal Tariffs; Gaza Hospitals Pushed To The Brink As Medical Supplies Run Scarce. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired March 24, 2025 - 17:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[17:00:00]

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Earlier, his team gave him a ladder to cut the net off of the hoop. Yeah, the ladder was like not even required looking in there. He told Guinness in 2022 that no one really knows why he's so tall. Doctors just say it's family genetics. His father is 6'8. His brother is 6'9. His mother is 6'2. Somehow, he came out basically a foot taller than the rest of them.

Okay. Well, that's quite something. All I have to say is, did you see the buzzer beater for the Terps last night. My dad is thrilled. "The Lead" with Phil Mattingly starts right now.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Welcome to "The Lead." I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper. We begin this hour with two breaking stories. First, a group chat for the history books. The White House confirms that it appears a journalist was accidentally added to a text chain where top Trump administration officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Vice President J. D. Vance, were texting actual war plans about upcoming military strikes in Yemen.

That reporter is "The Atlantic's" editor, Jeffrey Goldberg. He says he couldn't believe the messages were real until the bombs started dropping on Yemen on March 15. We're going to break down how this could have happened and discuss the national security implications.

And the legal fight over Trump's use of wartime powers to deport migrants accused of being in a Venezuelan gang. The federal appeals court judge today said those migrants got worse treatment than Nazis under the Alien Enemies Act. The latest on that hearing just ahead.

But we begin with CNN's Oren Liebermann and this bombshell reporting from "The Atlantic." Oren, let's start with how was a journalist included in this group chat?

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: It appears according to Jeffrey Goldberg's account of this, and it is a wild account, that it was by accident from Mike Walz, the national security advisor. And at first, he says he didn't believe it. He thought it was a fake phishing attempt and that continued even as big names were added or appeared to be added. That is Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary, Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, Mike Walz, the National Security Advisor, and he only believed it was real as he watched what seemed to be classified information about weapons packages, target packages for the first U.S. strikes in Yemen.

He knew it was real when the bombs started hitting on cue. Here is a part of the exchange that shows it wasn't just a national security consideration, it was a political consideration that led them to decide about whether to carry these strikes out now. This is part of the screenshot that Goldberg shared in "The Atlantic" article.

He says, from Vice President JD Vance, "@Pete Hegseth, if you think we should do it, let's go. I just hate bailing out Europe again. Let's just make sure our messaging is tight here, and if there are things, we can do upfront to minimize risk to Saudi oil facilities, we should do it." Pete Hegseth then responds, "VP, I fully share your loathing of European freeloading. It's pathetic. But Mike, that is National Security Advisor Mike Walz, is correct. We are the only ones on the planet on our side of the ledger who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is a good time as any, given POTUS' directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go, but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space."

Goldberg says over and over again in this chat, they were confident they had offset, that is operational security, that none of this was leaking after they had included a journalist in the chat.

MATTINGLY: Yeah. That ended up not being true because of that addition. Look, the actual kind of debate here to the extent we saw it was fascinating in and of itself, but it's also what we're not supposed to be seeing in a process like this. People often talk about, well, that's a national security risk. That's a threat to national security. Explain to people why that is the case here.

LIEBERMANN: Look, when the U.S. is planning to carry out military operations, when it's discussing its war plans, those are clearly classified. They're not supposed to leak. They're not supposed to be discussed on unclassified systems. And it's a violation of the law, frankly, to transfer information from a classified system to an unclassified system.

Virtually everyone on this chat, if not outright everyone, has quick and easy access to classified systems. They have teams of assistants and people walking around with them to make sure they can get on the classified systems like SIPR and JWICS. And yet they intentionally chose not to use them. Whether it was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or somebody who works under him, information that he had, classified information about weapons packages, targeting, was transferred from a classified system to Signal.

Now Signal may be a secure messaging app, but it is not a classified system. It clearly has operational security problems, especially when you're not checking who's in your group chat, and yet this chat proceeded. I have talked to former senior officials who say, look, this absolutely puts the troops on the ground at risk that this information was coming out on an unsecure, unclassified system ahead of the war plans being put into effect.

[17:04:59]

MATTINGLY: Raising a lot of questions that need answers. Oren Liebermann, great reporting as always. Thanks so much. I want to turn now to CNN's Kaitlan Collins who is at the White House for us. Kaitlan, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt just put out a statement reacting to this report. What'd she say?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Yeah. And, Phil, she's saying in the statement that President Trump has the utmost confidence in his national security team, including the National Security Adviser, Mike Walz, who apparently is the one who inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg of "The Atlantic" to this group chain that, as Oren noted there, was not only not on a secure government channel, but obviously included a reporter who was privy to these discussions before the strikes in Yemen happened and as they continued on.

And so what they have confirmed here at the White House is this is an authentic group chat. They're not denying the existence of it or saying that it wasn't a real chat that included some of these most senior high ranking officials here at the White House and the closest advisers to President Trump himself, but instead say that they believe, as the National Security Council spokesperson said earlier, that it reveals a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials, not addressing the fact and the concerns that we've even heard from Republicans about the national security risks and implications here.

Now President Trump was asked by a reporter earlier today for his thoughts and his reaction to this. Phil, he expressed surprise about the story overall.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of "The Atlantic." To me, it's a magazine that's going out of business. I think it's not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what?

UNKNOWN: They were using Signal to coordinate on sensitive materials and --

TRUMP: Having to do with what? Having to do with what? What were they talking about?

UNKNOWN: The Houthis.

TRUMP: The Houthis. You mean the attack on the Houthis?

UNKNOWN: Correct.

TRUMP: Well, it couldn't have been very effective because the attack was very effective. I can tell you that. I don't know anything about it. You're telling me about it for the first time. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: So the president there seeming to say hours ago, before the statement from Karoline Leavitt came out, that he was unaware of this story at the time. Of course, it remains to be seen how his reaction changes as this goes on. But, Phil, I've been talking to people here at the White House and across different agencies all day since this story broke, and people are absolutely stunned by this.

Not just that, Jeffrey Goldberg was added to this group chat, but, obviously, that it was being done on Signal, this commercial messaging app where the highest ranking officials were talking about war plans. But, also, when it comes to Jeffrey Goldberg, there's another layer to that because President Trump has a personal disdain for him given his past coverage of the president, and so that essentially just adds insult to injury here.

Some people have speculated about whether or not this is going to result in the firing of one of their colleagues because of just what a major unforced error this is. So far, the White House says that the president has confidence in Mike Walz. President Trump himself did not allude to firing anyone there in that statement. But, obviously, a remarkable moment here where this was being blasted out in group threads and chats throughout here at the White House after it came out today, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Yeah. Notable backing of Mike Walz given what you were exactly talking about just there, Kaitlan Collins. Kaitlan Collins, as always from the White House, thanks so much. And keep in mind, tonight, on Kaitlan's show, "The Source." Kaitlan will have Jeffrey Goldberg, the journalist behind this explosive story. Look for that at 9:00 eastern right here on CNN.

I want to bring in two voices with very unique perspective here. Sabrina Singh, who was the deputy Pentagon press secretary during the Biden administration, and Sean Savett, who's the spokesman and senior director for the press at the National Security Council also during the Biden administration. Guys, welcome. I want to try to do something a little bit different here. You guys both worked for the last administration. You have very clear and unequivocal policy differences with the current administration.

I want to focus on what's actually happened here and try and get a sense, try and explain to people why so many people, Republicans and Democrats, are stunned right now. And I guess I would start Sabrina with you. In terms of preparation for an operation, military operation in this case, the strikes in Yemen, the idea of sharing this at a principal's level on an app, encrypted or not --

SABRINA SINGH, FORMER DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: Yeah.

MATTINGLY: -- did you have any experience seeing this in your time with, at DOD?

SINGH: I think we can forcefully say we've never experienced anything like this. And why it's so serious is that it's not just the individuals. It's not just some employees that are on a chat. I mean, this is the entire national security apparatus from the highest levels of government to Mike Walz to Pete Hegseth to the Secretary of State Marco Rubio. On top of that, you know, operations when they're ongoing, you never discuss that especially in an unclassified setting.

And to discuss kind of these plans that they were, you know, conducting these bombings against the Houthis, Houthi targets and they said that these operations were going to be ongoing for multiple days, putting that in a classified -- putting classified information in a commercial texting app puts our war fighters at risk, puts our pilots at risk, who are going out there on these missions every single day. So it's shocking that we're talking about this and that they were using this Signal thread to kind of coordinate and communicate on a major operation.

MATTINGLY: So establishing no precedent, at least during your guys' time --

SINGH: Right.

MATTINGLY: -- Sean, look, I have experienced there were times I had a tough time getting a hold of you when I was covering the White House and you were at NSC because you were in a SCIF. We couldn't --

SEAN SAVETT, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SPOKESMAN: Exactly.

SINGH: Yeah.

[17:10:00]

MATTINGLY: -- necessarily contact. The use of an encrypted app, for somebody who says, look, Signal's encrypted. A lot of people use Signal. A lot of people in government, even in your administration, would use it to talk about kind of logistics or kind of process. Why is this different than that?

SAVETT: Sure. Well, this is incredibly different than that because as Sabrina said, this is an operational security risk because we're talking about impending U.S. military operations. We're talking about forthcoming troop movements. And if an adversary had compromised any of those individuals' personal devices and then tipped off the Houthis, then we'd be having a very different conversation right now about potentially the risk to Americans and American troops and potentially casualties. That's a horrific scenario.

MATTINGLY: Do adversaries have the capability of getting into an encrypted (inaudible) Signal?

SAVETT: Well, they have the capability of getting into anyone's phones, and that's why we were instructed when we were in government to never use our personal devices to conduct government business, not to mention it's also illegal under the Presidential Records Act. As White House employees, we always had to use government phones to conduct government business. But also, you would never use unclassified systems to discuss classified information for the exact same reasons as Sabrina said.

SINGH: I mean --

MATTINGLY: (Inaudible). I want to ask you -- not to interrupt, but to that point --

SAVETT: Yeah.

MATTINGLY: -- we work in a world where classified systems and -- we understand kind of how this all works or where you're actually getting your information, when you're in a SCIF, or when you're in the situation room. Explain that to people in a situation like this.

SINGH: Yeah.

MATTINGLY: Where would this information usually exist at a principals level?

SINGH: Just to give you an overview on how, like, an operation like this would work, I mean, usually something like this would require, you know, multiple days of meetings in secure compartmentalized meeting rooms. These are SCIFs. And then the DOD, State Department, the White House would all coordinate. And usually, it is the commander, the COCOM commander. In this case, it'll be Central Command who's going to lead the operation, briefing the president, briefing the Secretary of Defense, but it all happens at classified levels.

And sometimes it's so highly classified that it even happens at levels above just the secret or top secret level. So the fact that they're talking about this on unclassified systems means that the Secretary of Defense took classified information, put it in a Signal thread, and essentially put our fighter pilots at complete risk.

And so this is the party that said they're going to make our military stronger. They literally did the exact opposite of that. And if they -- if these Signal messages had been intercepted by an adversary, the damage could have just been horrific, including with, you know, deaths of some of our pilots.

MATTINGLY: Real quick before I let you guys go. You know, in one case, J.D. Vance says, look, I'm in Michigan for a campaign event, or he was on the road for something. The access to these systems for these principals when they're traveling, when they're on the road, when they're in another country, do they exist?

SAVETT: Yes, they do. You can certainly go to, you know, a U.S. military base, an embassy if you're traveling overseas, to a location in Michigan or, you know, wherever you're on the road to try to get access. You have that access when you're on Air Force One, when you're on Air Force Two. You certainly have no shortage if you're the vice president of the United States of being able to access a classified system or if you're the Secretary of Defense.

It is incredibly reckless that they would put this information on a personal device. I mean, when Sabrina and I were dealing with this, if we were going to have, you know, a military operation what we were coordinating on, we would -- I would like, the closest I can even imagine to coming to this this would say I would call Sabrina and say, hey, we need to be -- we need to have a conversation.

Please get to a secure phone or please check your classified e-mail so then we can set up a meeting and so we can then, figure out how we're going to communicate about something like this. So the fact that they are putting this information out there for anyone to see, is really damaging because even though it's an encrypted messaging app, anyone could compromise these devices.

MATTINGLY: Especially having all the principals together on a single thread. Look, I would like to be added to the thread, but certainly not with any precedent that I know of. Sabrina Singh, Sean Savett, thanks, guys. Really appreciate your time.

SINGH: Thanks, Phil.

SAVETT: Thank, Phil.

MATTINGLY: But we're back with the other breaking story this hour. The Trump administration trying to lift the block on deportation flights. Hear the argument post to an appeals court moments ago and how a judge responded.

And later, President Trump says April 2 will be, quote, "Liberation Day in America." That's when his new regime of tariffs goes into effect. What these constant threats are doing to the stock market and your money.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

MATTINGLY: Now to the breaking news in our "Law and Justice Lead." Appeals court judges have weighed in with strong opinions on President Trump's use of wartime powers to quickly deport people they claim are part of the Venezuelan gang. Let's go straight to CNN's Katelyn Polantz. Katelyn, today's hearing led to some, let's just call them spicy moments between one of the appeals court judges and the Department of Justice. What were they, and what was the ultimate likely result of today's hearing?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, we don't have a ruling yet from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That will come later, and it's very likely to go to the Supreme Court as well. But today's hearing, it was about the Venezuelan migrants put on a plane and the question of whether the courts can step in if they do not have a hearing, if the president can just toss people out of the country.

A spicy quote is one way to describe it, a searing, really startling metaphor from Judge Patricia Millett on the circuit as she was questioning the Justice Department lawyer. She said, there were plane loads of people in this case. There were no procedures in place to notify people. Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act. And then the Justice Department attorney, Drew Ensign, responded, well, your honor, we certainly dispute the Nazi analogy. But Judge Millett had a lot of questions like this, about this sort of level of specifics.

Where do the courts come into play here? And she went on asking much more about this. She got a little bit more specific about the situation here, that these are Venezuelan migrants. They're being detained. That's not an issue, but they're disputing whether they are from that Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua.

She said, "You all could have put me on Saturday and thrown me on a plane thinking I'm a member of Tren de Aragua and given me no chance to protest and say somehow it's a violation of presidential war powers for me to say, excuse me. No. I'm not. I'd like a hearing."

[17:20:00]

The Justice Department was arguing to the court that the courts shouldn't be able to have a role here, but that is not where the hearing ended up at the end, Phil. There's another judge on this court. It's three judges, so they'll have to vote two in line, one side or the other. A third judge at this this hearing, Justin Walker, he was asking, you know, what court should these people have gone to so that they could be heard on this question? Is it in D.C. or is it in some place like Texas where they were being held?

So a lot happening in the hearing, a lot of big questions about the power of the presidency, but this clearly wasn't about Donald Trump's ability to conduct wartime affairs. This was about these Venezuelan migrants on the plane. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Katelyn Polantz, with the latest. Thanks so much. Let's discuss now with our panel, Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She's also a former New York City mayoral candidate, and Jim Trusty, an attorney who once represented President Trump in the now dismissed federal classified documents case. Guys, welcome. Thanks so much. Jim, I want to start with you because the issue of due process has been what everybody's really kind of seized on here including today in court. Why shouldn't there be due process here? What is the argument in favor for what the administration has moved forward?

JIM TRUSTY, FORMER CHIEF, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, ORGANIZED CRIME AND GANG SECTION: Well, but it's kind of evolving towards all sides agreeing that some form of due process is appropriate, but what? You know, this started off as really a 2:00 a.m. attack on the statute itself, a facial attack on the statute. It's now an as applied attack, which is much better for the ACLU side of this in terms of saying, hey, they should have some sort of hearing.

What judge Walker brought up, which I think is the best argument that the administration can have, is look, they have the ability to file a habeas attack. You know, never mind what their rights are or aren't under the AEA.

MATTINGLY: Explain what that means. TRUSTY: Well, habeas is basically kind of like going to a court and saying I'm being wrongfully held. You have to file that generally where you are held. So for the five lead defendants or five lead plaintiffs, I should say, in this case, that's a jail in Texas. So you would file in district court in Texas saying I'm not a member of this gang, I'm being wrongfully deported, and you'd have some form of due process here and there.

It's not going to be like a full blown trial, it's not going to be recognizable to people that watch, like, you know, civil and criminal trials all the time, but you'd have a hearing in front of a legitimate judge who would decide whether or not the government has the right to pursue this deportation.

MATTINGLY: To Jim's point here, which I do think that's kind of how we've seen the arguments transition a little bit over the last, but certainly today, not having due process on the front end here, including people getting on planes and being sent to a foreign country, as part of this. I don't know that people are necessarily questioning the executive authority behind the law at this point in time. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Oh, go ahead.

MAYA WILEY, PRESIDENT & CEO, THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL & HUMAN RIGHTS: Yeah. Well, look, there's no question that there are powers in this country to deport people who should not be here. Those do come with some due process protections. And at the same time, what we have here is something that is quite unusual, which is a president using an act that has really been used only three times in the history of this country and in times when explicitly the terms of the act applied, meaning we literally had a congressionally declared war, and then the other instance, under the act in which you can use it is invasion.

And here, one of the things we have is an act being interpreted to be used by an administration for its agenda on mass deportations. And the point here is whether or not we're going to see used, I think the admission that this is a due process issue and due process is necessary is what kind of process is due. Because under that act, you actually can deport people. The president has the right to deport people summarily. So it really still is a legal question. This really is going to get to the Supreme Court eventually, but it is why I think it's important that there's a recognition that due process matters.

MATTINGLY: To your point though, and I think what's fascinating is not the word to use given the fact we're talking about human lives here. But from an intellectual perspective, the executive order declaring an invasion on January 20 seemed pretextual for a lot of what they've done on the immigration space. Is that kind of how you read the intent behind it?

WILEY: Well, that is the concern, right, that what really is happening here is a statute that has a very specific function under very specific circumstances. Congress has declared a war or there's an actual physical invasion of the country happening. To say, I'm going to determine that people who are potential criminals, I say potential because we have people in this case, we're disputing whether they're members of this gang.

MATTINGLY: Right.

WILEY: -- are -- can be summarily deported under this law. That means if you have a mass deportation agenda, you can then go and just use that as a way to say, I'm going to say you're part of the invasion. And invasion language is language we have heard from Donald Trump even prior to his executive order, and the question is why.

[17:24:56]

And but I think we also have to remember one other thing, why due process matters so much here. Because we already have 70 people who were U.S. citizens who've been deported in the past five years in this country. It's not like ICE always gets it right and you have due process to protect against getting it wrong.

MATTINGLY: Your response.

TRUSTY: Well, a lot of things. I mean, look, the invasion language is not some creature of Donald Trump's politics. It's the language of the statute. The warfare language obviously doesn't apply to the AEA right now, but you could argue with a straight face. We've had four years of an open border. We never had this gang present in the United States until that period. So you might be able to run with that argument in terms of the invasion and have some success.

But look, I think the bottom line is they are -- really what it comes down to ultimately is two things. One is, will the circuit throw this back for more fact finding by Judge Boasberg, which slows this down and lengthens the time before we get to the Supreme Court? That was really kind of the urging of the ACLU side today.

On the other side, you could say, look, the questions he's been asking are inappropriate. He's asking questions with no notice, no time frame except hurry up and answer, and that they're setups for contempt, that he's already beyond the legal authority issues and just deciding whether he's mad at the administration. And, you know, people can shake their heads, but the questions were pretty loaded questions to suggest he had been told answers that were not accurate.

MATTINGLY: And I think it'll be interesting to see what his demeanor is going. We got to go, but I will say you've made the point before that the appeal on contempt may actually be beneficial to the administration on some level. So maybe --

TRUSTY: It's a more logical hook for jurisdiction on the appellate court than a temporary restraining order.

MATTINGLY: We certainly know there will be appeals on a lot of fronts in the weeks and months ahead. Jim Trusty, Maya Wiley, thanks, guys very much.

WILEY: Thank you.

TRUSTY: Good to see you. MATTINGLY: We want to get back to the stunner in Washington today. Classified war plans on an unclassified group chat among top administration officials. A key Senate Democrat will join me with his reaction. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:31:12]

MATTINGLY: In our money lead, in an unprecedented move -- move, the company putting on the White House's annual Easter egg roll is soliciting corporate sponsorships. The move is raising eyebrows among ethics experts and others, but it isn't the first time the Trump White House has flouted norms on the South Lawn. Of course, just a few weeks ago, you see right there, President Trump and Elon Musk used the grounds to tout a selection of Teslas. CNN's Betsy Klein joins me now. Betsy, you scooped this story. It's a great story on CNN.com. Can you explain why this is different than kind of what we've normally seen?

BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE PRODUCER: Yes, exactly. So the White House, through this private event company called Harbinger, is offering corporate sponsorships for this year's White House Easter egg roll. So starting at $75,000, going all the way up to $200,000 for branding opportunities. I obtained this nine-page document of sponsorship opportunities that's being sent to prospective sponsors. And when I showed it to ethics experts, former White House lawyers, officials who have planned this event in the past, the overwhelming reaction is one of shock and concern.

Now, the egg roll has been privately funded for many years. What is different here is this explicit promise of logo placement and branding on the South Lawn. I just want to read to you quickly from this sponsorship breakdown. They're promising naming rights for key areas or elements, sponsor logos featured on event signage, custom-branded baskets, snacks, beverages, or souvenirs, and mentions in official event communication and social media posts. Now, sponsors are also going to get tickets to the egg roll. Of course, they're hard to come by, a private brunch with the First Lady and a tour of the White House.

Now, the concern I'm hearing here, Phil, is twofold. Number one, this document itself, the access that it is promising, as well as what this actually looks like in practice. We don't know yet if there are going to be social media posts on official White House accounts. We also don't know what it's going to look like to have these logos in place as people are rolling their eggs with their little wooden spoons.

MATTINGLY: This is where we make the joke about egg prices and all that type of stuff. Betsy Klein, it was great reporting. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: If these detailed exchanges about coordinating military operations fell into the hands of America's enemies, it could get people killed. If you were up in arms over unsecure e-mails years ago, you should certainly be outraged by this amateurish behavior.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: That was the Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, just a few hours ago, calling for an investigation into the bombshell report from "The Atlantic" about the war plans. The editor-in-chief of "The Atlantic" says he was, quote, accidentally included in a group text where top administration officials, the top administration officials, discussed highly sensitive information about U.S. military strikes in Yemen.

And again, these aren't just any Trump officials. We're talking about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President J.D. Vance, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, all reportedly using non- government encrypted chat apps talking about classified information.

I want to bring in Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, who serves on the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees. Senator, you have posted and put out a statement about this. The revelation itself, what does it tell you about this administration?

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Phil, if true, these allegations are just shocking. The idea that the Secretary of Defense shared detailed, highly classified war plans for exactly what munitions were going to be dropped on what targets at what times could have put American service members at risk, violate some of the most basic standards for sharing highly classified military operational data, and calls for an immediate oversight hearing and investigation.

I believe there's going to be a hearing on the Intelligence Committee publicly tomorrow, where I expect this will be looked into in detail, and I'm working with colleagues right now on a follow-up letter that will demand oversight hearings and accountability for these actions.

[17:35:12]

MATTINGLY: That was the -- there's already a scheduled global threats hearing, where at least two of the people in this chat, the CIA director and the director of National Intelligence, are scheduled to appear, first in the Senate tomorrow, then in the House on Wednesday.

I think a lot of us have been wondering how Republicans are going to respond to this, typically very quick to defend the administration on just about anything. My colleague, Manu Raju, just caught up with House Speaker Mike Johnson. I want you to take a listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA) HOUSE SPEAKER: Clearly, I think the administration has acknowledged it was a mistake, and they'll tighten up and make sure it doesn't happen again. I don't know what else you can say about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Has the administration acknowledged the mistake here, and what do you expect the consequences will be?

COONS: I don't know if they've acknowledged this mistake. My understanding from a brief press conference I heard while I was traveling down to D.C. today was that President Trump was trying to say he'd never heard of "The Atlantic" and didn't think it was well- read and didn't have any particular comment. Next, I expect him to begin saying he's never heard of Secretary Hegseth. Look, I've been to surprise birthday parties that had better security than this attack on the Houthis by the Trump administration.

It's an alarming breach of how we deal with highly classified information, and it's got to lead to a deeper question about how the senior team in this administration, in this White House, is sharing information. I'll remind you, Phil, the thing Americans have been most concerned about, at least that I've gotten the most calls about in the last month, is how Elon Musk and his DOGE team got into the information of every American about their tax returns, about their filings, about their financial data.

So if they're this loose and this casual with something as highly classified as the plans for an imminent military attack, how can we trust Elon Musk and his DOGE team with handling or having any access to highly classified, personally identifying information that every American expects will be kept secret? That's why a federal judge has ordered Elon Musk and the DOGE team to have no further access and to not take any inappropriate use of that information that they got from the Treasury Department.

MATTINGLY: Right. I mean, I think the -- the question right now, though, is there will obviously be public hearings that were already scheduled with some of these people. You talk about how you're working with colleagues about a letter, and I'm not minimizing or diminishing the act of U.S. senators getting together and signing a letter, but what actually creates some type of oversight or investigative hearing into this? You don't control the Senate. Your colleagues don't control the House.

COONS: That's right.

MATTINGLY: What's the trigger here?

COONS: Phil, we need Republicans to step up and take responsibility for oversight. Our framers understood that there was a separation of powers, that senators and House members would take on the responsibilities of their body, and when an administration, even of their own party, made a fundamental mistake like this, that they would act, that they would get into the details and that they would demand some accountability.

As we are in the minority, there's limits to what we can do to compel full committee hearings, but we will work at it. We will press for it. We will demand action both publicly and privately, and frankly, this is just the latest in a series of actions by Elon Musk, by President Trump, by some of his senior leaders that make the average American lose faith in their ability to handle classified information competently.

MATTINGLY: Senator, you're one of those rare species on Capitol Hill where you actually talk to members of the opposite party.

COONS: Yes.

MATTINGLY: You're on committees that traditionally are bipartisan. What are they saying? I mean, look, I've talked to a lot of Republicans today who are dumbfounded by this report. None of them will go on the record and say as much.

COONS: That's right.

MATTINGLY: What are your colleagues telling you behind the scenes?

COONS: So we're all just returning now from a week back in our home states. The conversations I've had so far have been brief, and I'm looking forward to seeing a number of my colleagues in person right now when I head to the floor for a vote. And frankly, to see if we can't find some common purpose in investigating this alarming incident.

MATTINGLY: Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, I always appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.

COONS: Thank you, Phil.

[17:39:27]

MATTINGLY: Well, up next, how investors appear to be reacting to President Trump's constant terror threats. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: In the Money Lead, the markets ending the day in positive territory after learning President Trump's next round of tariffs may be actually softer than anticipated. The President has, of course, called April 2nd his launch of reciprocal tariffs liberation day. But reports swirl today that those tariffs may end up being smaller than anticipated. Even the President himself seemed to be tempering expectations. CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich joins me now. Vanessa, the tariff threats they have, to put it plainly, cause a lot of whiplash for investors in the markets. Why exactly is there a sense of optimism right now?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS & POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Investors are breathing a sigh of relief today because they are seeing that these reciprocal tariffs set to go into effect on April 2nd may not be as bad as they were initially advertised. The Dow closing up almost 600 points. The S&P closing up more than 1.7 percent. And the NASDAQ closing up more than 2 percent.

And that is a huge turnaround from what we've seen the last couple weeks when markets were reacting very badly to this advertisement by the President that he was going to hit every single country that had a tariff on U.S. exports with their own tariff,. a direct match. A tariff on any exports coming from other countries. Here's the President earlier today from the White House walking back this big day, Liberation Day, on April 2nd.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[17:45:19]

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I may give a lot of countries breaks, but it's reciprocal, but we might be even nicer than that. You know, we've been very nice to a lot of countries for a long time. They've charged us so much that I'm embarrassed to charge them what they've charged us. But it'll be substantial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YURKEVICH: So a little less than what is expected, but here is still what is yet to come. There are tariffs that are going to go into effect on April 2nd. They will be reciprocal, but they will be pared back, probably fewer countries and at a lower rate. Also, there's going to be sector-specific tariffs, so on things like autos coming into this country or lumber coming into this country, copper as well. And then today on Truth Social, President Trump posted about a secondary tariff on Venezuela, a 25 percent tariff for any country that buys oil from Venezuela.

Phil, the biggest buyer of Venezuelan oil is China. They already have a tariff on goods coming out of their country as well as steel and aluminum tariffs. If that tariff were to go into effect, China could end up having a 70 percent tariff, Phil, on steel and aluminum. So an escalation and a de-escalation at the same time here, Phil.

MATTINGLY: It makes total sense. I suspect we'll be doing this again tomorrow. Vanessa Yurkevich, appreciated as always, my friend.

Well, up ahead, the urgent situation unfolding in Gaza amid Israel's intensified strikes and the targeting of the terror group Hamas. Dire scenes in hospitals, one doctor's grim prediction if the situation does not change in the next two weeks. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:51:49]

MATTINGLY: In our World Lead, CNN's Jeremy Diamond takes a look at hospitals in Gaza being pushed to the brink. A warning, viewers may find images in this report disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Four-year- old Janine drifts in and out of consciousness. An Israeli airstrike hit her home last week while she was sleeping, killing her mother and 25 other family members. Bleeding from her brain, she desperately needs surgery. But her doctor says she won't survive that surgery in this Gaza hospital. They don't have the specialized equipment that's needed.

For over three weeks, Israel hasn't allowed anything into Gaza. No food, no fuel and no medical supplies. A blockade that is pushing hospitals here to the brink once again, endangering their ability to treat patients like Janine.

DR. MOHAMMED MOSTAFA, AUSTRALIAN VOLUNTEER MEDIC IN GAZA: UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So this is the drugs that we have in the department.

DIAMOND (voice-over): Dr. Mohammed Mostafa, an Australian doctor volunteering at Al-Ahli Hospital, says they are quickly running out of basic pain medications and anesthetics. And this is now the main hospital in northern Gaza. He says diagnostic equipment is also in short supply. The E.R. has no ventilators, one working ECG machine and only one heart monitor can measure blood pressure.

MOSTAFA: When we have these drone attacks and these missile strikes, we could have up to about 100 patients in here and only one area that can do blood pressure.

DIAMOND (voice-over): And so when crisis hits, you can feel this already strained hospital buckling under the weight of it all. On the night Israel breaks the ceasefire with a massive aerial attack, every inch of this hospital is packed with casualties. In one corner, a relative pumps oxygen to keep his loved one alive.

In another, a child screams out in pain. Dr. Mostafa is two weeks into his second volunteer tour in Gaza, where the lack of resources is forcing him to make impossible choices.

MOSTAFA: I remember I was putting in a chest drain into a man who had quite a collapsed lung and I felt someone grab my ankle. And it was -- because there were so many bodies, there was a woman underneath the bed that had half a leg missing who was holding onto my ankle and she was asking me to help her. And I'm already halfway through the procedure with him. That will save his life. And I've not really even assessed. I don't know if she's got other injuries as well. So I continued putting the chest drain in him and she bled out on the floor holding my ankle. And, you know, that's been very difficult for me to -- to process.

DIAMOND: Where do you think things will be in two weeks? Will your hospital, will the health care system be able to survive?

MOSTAFA: Unfortunately, I -- I think if there isn't a resolution in the next few days with regards to food, water, electricity and medicine and the ramp up of medical personnel, a lot of people are going to die.

DIAMOND (voice-over): The Israeli agency overseeing aid to Gaza referred questions about the blockade to the prime minister's office, which did not respond. As hospitals begin limiting ambulance transfers due to a lack of fuel, casualties now arriving at hospitals on horse- drawn carts. Patients needing specialized care are left in limbo, facing sky-high risks of infection and an uncertain future as Israel ramps up its attacks. Yesterday's survivors risk becoming tomorrow's dead.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[17:55:20]

DIAMOND (on camera): And, Phil, Israeli officials have said that they are engaging in this total blockade of Gaza in order to pressure Hamas to release more hostages. But that, of course, has prompted accusations that Israel is violating international law by engaging in collective punishment of the 2 million people who live in the Gaza Strip. And, of course, as we are seeing with the hospitals, it is often the most vulnerable who are suffering as a result. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Jeremy Diamond, thanks for the reporting.

Well, up next, we have new reaction from the White House after Trump officials somehow included a journalist in a group chat about classified war plans. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)