Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Backs National Security Adviser Involved In Group Chat; White House Says, Russia, Ukraine Agree To Stop Fighting In Black Sea; Trump Touts Price Cuts While Consumer Confidence Drops; New Book Explores Ways To Prevent Alzheimer's; Trump's Portrait To Be Taken Down At Colorado Capitol After President Claimed It Was "Distorted". Aired 6-7p ET

Aired March 25, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.

This hour, President Trump is standing by his man, defending National Security Adviser Mike Waltz despite Waltz's role in starting a group chat that discussed highly sensitive information about U.S. military strikes. But a growing number of Republicans are raising concerns about how all of this unfolded.

[18:00:01]

Plus, new data out today show not only are Americans expecting higher inflation this year but more are also predicting a recession. What does this mean for your wallet?

Also, Pope Francis' health got so bad, at one point, his doctors considered stopping his treatment and letting him die. That's a stunning revelation from the pope's lead hospital doctor who's sharing new details about those tough behind the scenes decisions.

And a devastating injury rocks March Madness, one of the biggest stars in college basketball done for the season, now facing surgery. What all this means for the title races.

Well, the Lead Tonight, passing the buck. Will there be any accountability for top Trump administration officials who discussed highly sensitive military activity in a group chat that just happened to include a journalist? Just hours ago, President Trump publicly stood by his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, the man who The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg says, added him to the chat. Waltz claiming he has zero connection to Goldberg.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL WALTZ, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: This one in particular, I've never met, don't know, never communicated with, and we are looking into him, reviewing how the heck he got into this room.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Now, Goldberg published multiple messages from the chat, but says he chose to withhold others that contained sensitive details on attack plans, timing, and targets. Trump today claimed the information in the group chat was not classified, a message echoed by a group chat member and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Senator, I can attest to the fact that there were no classified or intelligence equities that were included in that chat group at any time, and I defer --

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): So, the attack, sequencing and timing and weapons and targets you don't consider to -- should have been classified --

GABBARD: I defer to the secretary of defense, the National Security Council on that question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Gabbard deferring to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who yesterday railed against Goldberg without providing any answers as to how he was added to the chat. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who was also in the group chat, faced tough questions as well, including this from Democratic Senator Michael Bennet, who will join us in just a moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): Is your testimony that it was appropriate that he was added to this signal threat?

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: No, of course not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: CNN's Manu Raju is live for us on Capitol Hill. Manu, walk us through this hearing. What did we learn today?

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, a lot of defiance from the top administration officials, some deflection, and also the contention that they did nothing wrong. In fact, John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, saying that there was no mistake in how he would handle this.

And then we also heard an uptick in criticism of the journalist himself, even from the president going after Jeffrey Goldberg. That is simply not the message that some Republicans want to hear. In fact, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are actually backing the idea of Congress investigating what happened here. There're still a lot of questions despite the testimony today that we heard before the Senate Intelligence Committee. One senator who had just caught up with the sits on the Senate Armed Service Committee told me that the White House should not be attacking the messenger.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): The main thing is that we get assurances that it doesn't ever happen again.

I think it's best to just confess the mistake and say that we learned a lesson and this won't happen again. That's the best way to put it behind you. Otherwise, it will always haunt you.

I don't think attacking the messenger is a particularly effective way to handle it.

RAJU: Is it responsible, do you think?

REP. DAN NEWHOUSE (R-WA): In hindsight, probably not,

RAJU: But should there be in a House investigation, do you think?

NEWHOUSE: Yes, I think there should be a look at procedures and stuff done properly in the future.

RAJU: You guys have the oversight responsibility. Should you exercise it?

REP. BYRON DONALDS (R-FL): I mean, look, I paid attention to some of the Senate Intel hearing today. I don't really think so based on what came out of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, you're hearing that divided Republican response about how exactly to proceed.

We did hear from the Senate majority leader, John Thune, who I asked earlier today if he backs a Senate investigation into all of this. He said the Senate Armed Services Committee also will be asking questions, asking people to testify, and he expects those answers to come forward.

But the question will be, Phil, about whether that would go far enough for Democrats. Democrats want a lot more. In fact, the Democratic leader of the House, Hakeem Jeffries, just called for Pete Hegseth to be fired, much different tone than we're hearing from most Republicans.

MATTINGLY: Manu Raju live for us on Capitol Hill, thanks so much.

Let's turn now to CNN's, Jeff Zeleny, who's in the north lawn of the White House. Jeff, President Trump, his national security adviser, they were pressed about the backlash this afternoon. What did we learn?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Phil, I mean the White House talked to contain this really growing political fallout and also to try and to get everyone on the same page here, particularly on Capitol Hill, by not only standing by Mike Waltz, the national security adviser, but the president literally invited him to have a seat at the table in the cabinet room here this afternoon when the president was trying to make clear that there was simply nothing to see here.

[18:05:05]

He said there was not classified information that was disclosed in that group conversation. He did not say how he knew that. But asked when he thought Waltz should apologize, he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: No, I don't think he should apologize. I think he's doing his best. It's equipment and technology that's not perfect, and probably he won't be using it again, at least not in the very near future. What do you think?

WALTZ: Yes, sir. I agree with you. Let's get everybody in the room whenever possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So the president there is saying that Signal will not be used again unless there is no other option, and he said there will be a review. But still left unanswered is how Jeff Goldberg got added to this chat in the first place. Mike Waltz, the national security adviser, did not shed any light on that at all.

Also Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who's the one who sent out the highly sensitive war plan, the president did not mention him either. But one thing was clear, the White House was trying to move beyond this by having the president talk about it and, again, having Waltz right at his side to say that he's still on Trump's team. It was very Trumpian here, the playbook really sending that message out across Washington. Phil?

MATTINGLY: That is a very, very accurate assessment.

As always, Jeff Zeleny, thanks so much.

Well, joining us now is Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado. He serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator, I appreciate your time.

You had a number of tense exchanges during your question and answer period on the committee today, but I want to play some of that for our viewers. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENNET: Did you know that the president's Middle East adviser was in Moscow on this thread while you were as director of the CIA participating in this thread? Were you aware of that? Are you aware of that today?

RATCLIFFE: I'm not aware of that today. BENNET: This sloppiness, this incompetence, this disrespect for our intelligence agencies and the personnel who worked for him is entirely unacceptable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Senator, at another point in the hearing, you said after a similar exchange, you need to do better. What will convince you this national security team is doing better?

BENNET: It's going to come a -- you know, they've got to come a long way, Phil. I think, first of all, the points that I was making about, respecting our -- the people that serve in our intelligence agencies. This has been a struggle, as you know, throughout these hearings. The hearings for the CIA director, the hearings for Tulsi Gabbard, the inability of people to create confidence among Republicans and Democrats here that they can actually keep the nation's secrets secret.

And that is a whole different dimension to the problem that's happening at the same time, which is the president has all of a sudden decided our traditional allies are not the people we should rely on in the world. And we find ourselves voting, you know, with Russia and North Korea and China in the United Nations instead of with the allies that we've had before.

So, you take these two things at the same time, and I think it creates a heightened concern about our secrets falling into the wrong hands.

MATTINGLY: You know, after the hearing, we just heard Jeff Zeleny reporting about President Trump and his public appearance today, he echoed John Ratcliffe, he echoed DNI Tulsi Gabbard's assertion that no classified information was shared in the chat. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: There was no classified information, as I understand it. They used an app, if you want to call it an app, that a lot of people use, a lot of people in government use, a lot of people in the media use.

REPORTER: Mr. President, who told you that information was not classified?

TRUMP: Another question, please. Go ahead.

REPORTER: Which of your national security advisor told you that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: A notable pause and non-answer there in terms of who gave him that information. I guess my question is, based on the reporting, is it remotely plausible that there wasn't classified information here?

BENNET: I don't think it's remotely plausible and I haven't met anybody on Capitol Hill today who thinks that talking about our battle plans on Signal is the right thing to do. And so the idea that the administration officials came up here today and didn't apologize, didn't say they'd made a mistake, you know, claimed, I suppose, all kinds of privileges or were trying to split the, you know, kind of -- we have legalistic answers about whether stuff was classified or not. I mean, battle plans are basically always classified.

And we're in a situation here where Jeff Goldberg was willing to treat some of the information as though it might expose, I suppose, the sources and uses of the intelligence agencies of the United States of government, which has more care than the cabinet members that were on that phone call were willing to do.

[18:10:17]

And then after it was over, they haven't even said that they were wrong.

So, I think this is a story that's not going to go away. I think you're going to see deep bipartisan concern. These are life and death decisions that are made and there's a reason why information like this should never be shared publicly.

MATTINGLY: You know, the bipartisan concern you note, we don't see a lot of that these days with Republicans in control of the House and the Senate. The Senate Intel Committee is traditionally bipartisan or has worked in a bipartisan manner over my 15, 16 years covering Washington, D.C. What's next? Can you get these chats? What's the kind of process that you're pursuing now?

BENNET: I think what we really need to be able to see is the full transcript of the call and of the thread if the officials have it, which I believe they will, and I believe we should see it. So, that's what I think the next step for the Intelligence committee is. And then we have to exercise our oversight. As you said, you know, we do that generally in a bipartisan way.

It's not perfect. But the fact that we meet behind closed doors means there's less partisan finger pointing, and people take very responsibility -- very seriously their responsibility to their constituents because we're the ones that are providing oversight for the American people and even for the other senators who are not on the committee itself. And also to make sure that the standard that our intelligence are officers are required to live up to no matter what president is the president, that that's a standard that the political leadership is held to as well.

Because if they're not held to that standard, there's no reason to believe that anybody else will live up to the standards that are so important to protecting the national security of the United States. And that is really what's at stake here, no matter who the president is.

MATTINGLY: Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, I always appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.

BENNET: Thanks, Phil. Thank you. MATTINGLY: Well, despite the politics, there are serious questions about potential national security implications of this group chat, and whether top national security officials disclosed any classified information.

Plus, the dramatic revelations from one of the Pope's top doctors today, said the pontiff was so sick, they considered stopping medical treatment and letting him die. Those new details about the pope's weeks in the hospital, that's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): Director Ratcliffe, this was a huge mistake, correct?

RATCLIFFE: No. Terrorist organization --

OSSOFF: Inadvertent mistake of adding a reporter, and that wasn't a huge mistake? That wasn't a huge mistake?

RATCLIFFE: Well, I think they characterized it as a mistake.

OSSOFF: This is an embarrassment.

We will get the full transcript of this chain and your testimony will be measured carefully against its content.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: That was Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia grilling CIA Director John Ratcliffe over how a journalist got added to the now infamous signal group thread where U.S. military attack plans were discussed in real time.

My panel is here, and Carrie Cordero, I want to start with you. Because what the senator is going for there I think is an important point, because we have kind of watched today as the president said, Mike Waltz has learned a lesson, but this is actually all a hoax. NSC has an ongoing review, but, in fact, this is a coordinated effort by Jeffrey Goldberg and allies to distract from the president's accomplishments. No classified info was shared, but it turns out the defense secretary has the authority to declassify if he wants to. The transcript would seem to answer a lot of these questions on some level. How do lawmakers get it?

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it's going to be tricky actually for lawmakers to get it, unless Jeffrey Goldberg just decides to voluntarily provide it or to publish it, which I would imagine is something that he is probably thinking about and perhaps consulting with lawyers about given the potential classified nature of the information or certainly the fact that he thought he was receiving classified information. So, from the lawmaker's perspective, if the balance of power in Congress were different, then they could be in the realm of issuing subpoenas and actually compelling him to provide that information, which is a journalist would put him in a little bit of a better place, being compelled as opposed to voluntarily providing it. But with Republicans governing both houses of Congress, that seems very unlikely to me.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's a huge question, even with a traditionally bipartisan panel like Senate Intel.

Donell, one of the interesting things about these hearings, obviously, we see the fireworks and we see the kind of made for YouTube clips and we see very serious questioning as well, but you also now have a record of what these officials are saying, sworn testimony on Capitol Hill. What happens if anything that was said today runs afoul with what we learned from a potential transcript?

DONELL HARVIN, FORMER CHIEF, D.C. GOVERNMENT HOMELAND SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE: Well, I'll tell you I'm not an attorney, but everyone across the board from the administration says that this information was not classified. So, I don't see any encumbrance from the reporter from publishing it. I would tell you, however, that if an individual like myself who had access to the highest levels of national secrets, I had a top secret SCI clearance, if I had any of that stuff published on a Signal or WhatsApp like we used to use, there'd be severe consequences for me. And certainly if I testified in Congress to the contrary and it was found out that it was not the case.

MATTINGLY: General, I want to ask, you know, when we heard from the DNI and from CIA Director Ratcliffe, they were asked about the details of the group chat. We often heard a very common refrain. Watch.

[18:20:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there any mention, Ms. Gabbard, of a weapon or weapons system?

TULSI GABBARD, DNI DIRECTOR: I don't recall specific weapons systems being named.

RATCLIFFE: I don't recall.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How about anything about timing?

GABBARD: I don't recall specific timing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any mention of any military unit whatsoever?

RATCLIFFE: Not that I recall.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Gabbard?

GABBARD: Not that I recall. OSSOFF: The discussion included the vice president's private opinion on the wisdom of proposed U.S. strikes in Yemen, correct?

RATCLIFFE: I don't recall.

OSSOFF: It included the private opinions of the secretary of defense on the timing of strikes in Yemen, correct?

RATCLIFFE: I don't recall.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: General, what do you make of those answers, the decision, to answer like that to those questions.

BRIG. GEN. STEVE ANDERSON (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Evidently, having a good memory is not a qualification for serving in the Trump administration. But there's a cancer that's impacting this government, that this administration has brought in, and today's hearing and this incident with Signal is a manifestation of that. I mean, these people are essentially lying about, you know, what really happened, I believe. I believe that Jeffrey Goldberg was probably telling the truth. They are being deceitful. They are not being honest with the American people. They're being arrogant. They're lazy.

There's no reason why you'd ever have a conversation like this on a phone. You go into a SCIF, you get on the SIPRNet and view it, one of the systems that the United States government has spent billions of dollars making the most secure systems in the world so you can have top secret, clear discussions like this.

We put Americans' lives, you know, and I know a lot of people are trying to downplay this, but they might feel differently if their son or their daughter was a pilot in one of the F-16s that was delivering munitions in Yemen if the word had gotten out when they were going to be there and what they were going to be doing, that would've been a serious breach that would've put Americans at risk.

Who knows what -- who else knows about this other than this reporter from The Atlantic? There could be other people. And we don't know if this is an SOP, if they've been using this signal app to do all their business. We don't know if the Chinese or the Russians already know a plethora of secrets about this country. It's terrible, and we need to hold people accountable for this.

MATTINGLY: Carrie, I think that's really important because that's at the core of this, right? We're kind of taught -- we're parsing between classified, whether it was unclassified, what the actual information is, who had it, when, whether people recall it at all. What are the risks here for something like this?

CORDERO: Well, so, there's a few things. So, first of all, I think part of the difficulty in the conversation is that we don't know what the actual information was and we don't actually know what the classification level of it was. And so that makes it difficult. The only way to know that is to take what the transcript was in the actual chat and be able to compare that against actual classified documents and classified information, and then crosscheck those to see whether there was actually classified information that took place in this text message.

The challenge going forward is obviously these are senior leaders who are used to this informal nature of communicating with each other. It doesn't seem like this was necessarily the first time that they established, you know, a small group chat in Signal. And in other parts of government in the unclassified realm, Signal is actually the encouraged app to use.

So, what they need to do is they need to double down on what the general's describing, which is what are their procedures for handling classified information, for handling these high level conversations, and do it in a way that the senior national security leaders understand these are the channels in which they have to operate to protect against a potential disclosure that would risk an operation and potentially risk lives.

MATTINGLY: Really important point, guys. I really appreciate your time. Thank you guys very much.

Well, what appears to be a significant breakthrough today is U.S. officials meet with Russian leaders about a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. We're going to go live to Moscow, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

MATTINGLY: A tangible first step towards a full Russia-Ukraine ceasefire tops our World Lead. Today, the Trump administration announced Russia and Ukraine agreed to stop fighting in the Black Sea after marathon negotiations in Saudi Arabia. But soon after, the White House announced the plan, the Kremlin said the deal would only proceed if a few more conditions were met first.

CNN's Fred Pleitgen joins us now from Moscow. Fred, you spoke to the Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, today. What did he tell you?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, first of all, it's some pretty tough conditions that actually still have to be met filled. The Russians are saying that they want their agricultural bank to be taken off the sanctions list and some other industries as well to make sure that if they try to export their goods, their agricultural goods, that they're not at a disadvantage compared to the Ukrainians.

Now, the Kremlin spokesman told me, look, you have to keep in mind that there was already a grain deal once in place from summer '22 until summer '23, and the Russians felt they got the shorter end of the stick in that because the Ukrainians were able to export grain while the Russians under those heavy sanctions, it was more difficult for them.

Now, whether or not sanctions really for those entities is in the cards anytime soon is going to be very difficult, because while the U.S. could lift its sanctions, obviously European countries have a lot of sanctions on those industries as well.

Nevertheless, the Kremlin spokesman, Phil, also telling me that contacts between the U.S. and Russia continue in a very positive basis. He said one of the things that had come out of those negotiations in Riyadh, which he saw as very positive. Is that Ukraine and Russia have now agreed to a list of targets, critical energy infrastructure that is not to be hit, a moratorium on striking those entities.

[18:30:00]

He says that includes gas installations, oil installations, gas pipelines, but also, of course, nuclear power plants as well. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Notable framing from the spokesman. Fred Pleitgen, as always, thanks so much.

We're turning to our Health Lead now, new information, just how close Pope Francis came to death. We're learning the 88-year-old pontiff's medical team actually considered ending treatment and letting the pope die after multiple life-threatening breathing crises.

Joining me now to dig deeper into what exactly happened here, Dr. Jonathan Reiner, CNN medical analyst and professor of medicine and surgery at George Washington University. Dr. Reiner, I appreciate your time.

The man leading the pope's health team said, quote, we had to choose whether to stop and let him go or force it and try with all the drugs and therapies possible, running the very high risk of damaging other organs, and in the end, we took this path. What kind of damage would you be most worried about in this situation?

DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Well, I think really the decision that they made, Phil, was not so much whether to risk damaging his organs, because if the Pope was in imminent danger of dying, you know, one doesn't worry about that so much. I think really what the pope's team was doing was trying to understand whether what they were doing was futile and whether they were actually hurting the pope by continuing to treat them.

For aspiration pneumonia, which is really the major event that happened at the end of February when the pope vomited and then gets with that material (ph), that creates a terrible infection in the lungs, a very hard to treat infection that requires very strong antibiotics that can have systemic effects and kidney and liver issues.

But at some point, a treating team has to decide whether doing everything becomes too much. And when does it happen? You know, families and doctors face this every single day.

MATTINGLY: Yes, the hardest and most obviously high stakes decision. The doctor here also described Pope Francis' recovery as almost, quote, miraculous in the wake of his team pushing all of the aggressive therapies. I guess my question is, how does a patient come back from such a critical state?

REINER: I think it's very difficult. You know, the Pope is 88 years old and he entered this recent illness with compromised lung function starting, you know, many years ago as a young man when he had part of a lung replaced and he's had other hospitalizations for lung issues in recent years. But over a month hospitalization, five-week hospitalization, is extraordinarily difficult to recover from for anyone.

And I think the very brief moment we saw when the pope was released from the hospital where he basically thanked the people assembled below in the plaza below his window in the hospital, really showed how weak he was. He said basically one or two sentences and appeared to be breathless.

So, it's possible to recover from an illness like this, but really not -- sadly not return to the person you were. He's going to require a lot of physical therapy, a lot of pulmonary therapy to get to a point where he can participate in some of the activities that he did prior to this hospitalization. So, it's a very long haul.

I tell families that a typical hospitalization for somebody who's relatively fit takes about three times as long as the hospitalization to recover from. And for an almost 90-year-old, it's probably several fold, you know, longer than that. So, I think he's really looking at if he's very fortunate, you know, a several month recovery to get back close to where he was.

MATTINGLY: We were showing that video that you were referencing as you were speaking. You know, to that point the Vatican is confirmed, Pope Francis will require 24-hour medical assistance, oxygen therapy, physiotherapy. From a medical perspective, talk about the long-term here. What does the care that he has in place tell you about what the outlook is?

REINER: Well, I think a lot of attention now is going to be paid to pulmonary rehabilitation, to try and prevent the pope from developing another lung infection. You've seen in hospital rooms after surgery these breathing treatments, these sort of tools that patients use to blow into to try and expand their lungs and prevent segments of their lungs from collapsing. That'll be an important part of the pope's recovery trying to prevent him from aspirating again. Another aspiration, you know, would almost certainly be something he could not recover from.

But, fortunately, he has the ability to have an entire team at his residence in the Vatican, and they'll work hard with him. He'll need a lot of therapy. And, you know, hopefully he'll be able to, you know, to mount an improvement in his health status and get back to doing the things that are important to him and to many people around the world.

[18:35:01]

MATTINGLY: I think a hope everyone can share. Dr. Jonathan Reiner, I always appreciative of your expertise. Thanks so much.

REINER: My pleasure.

MATTINGLY: Well, Americans, they're feeling less and less optimistic about the state of the U.S. economy and more and more concerned about the potential of a recession. We're going to break down brand new data out today and how can impact you?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: New in the Money Lead, consumer confidence plunging to its lowest level since the pandemic. The survey from the conference board shows that not only are Americans worried about inflation but anticipating a recession soon to come. This afternoon, President Trump tried to soothe their concerns.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Egg prices have come down 45, 50 percent in the last week-and- a-half.

Gasoline's way down. Eggs are way down. Groceries are down very substantially, but down.

[18:40:01]

Almost everything's down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich is here. Vanessa, let's start with this. Are prices really dropping the way the president says?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Not exactly. The president said that egg prices have dropped 45 to 50 percent in the last week-and-a-half. Well, according to the USDA, prices actually fell by about 27 percent. That is because there hasn't been a major outbreak of the avian flu. There's been weakened consumer demand, and, ultimately, the prices may not translate to what consumers are paying at the grocery store as producers kind of stockpile and rebuild their egg supply.

Also on the grocery front, he said that prices were down substantially. Actually in the month of February, grocery prices were flat, according to the consumer price index, and they're still up 1.9 percent year-over-year.

He also said that gas prices were way down. Well, actually gas prices ticked up this week to $3.13 a gallon compared to about $3.08 a gallon last week, but they are down from a year ago.

I will say, Phil, it doesn't matter who the president is. Usually in the winter, gas prices are cheaper just because the fuel blend in the winter is much cheaper compared to what people are paying over the summer. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's an important point. Vanessa, as a fellow data nerd, when you dug into the consumer competence survey, what stood out to you about how Americans are feeling right now about prices?

YURKEVICH: Well, we're back to pandemic levels, really. Consumer confidence is at pandemic levels and that just signals that people are not feeling great about the economy. Also the expectations on the labor market front, on the business outlook, and also just their own personal income. That's at a 12 year-low. And that really signals that people are looking at all facets of their personal economy and not feeling great.

I also thought it was interesting, Phil, in this report, I would've thought that tariffs would've scared people and people would've been saving a little more. Instead, they're spending on big ticket items trying to beat these tariffs that are coming into effect. As we know, the next round is coming April 2nd. Consumers are stockpiling on big ticket items to beat some of those higher costs coming down the road,Phil.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's fascinating to look at. Vanessa Yurkevich, as always, thanks so much.

Well, to our Sports Lead now, this sucked, to be frank. USC'S Juju Watkins devastated. Season-ending injury could potentially shake up the rest of the women's NCAA basketball tournament. Watkins tore her ACL in her right knee in last night's win of a Mississippi state.

Now, the Trojan's advanced in the Sweet 16, but now there is serious doubt over whether USC can still make it to the National Championship without their unequivocal star, best player in the country.

You may know her as a journalist with a room full of awards. I know her as a fellow Ottawa Hills Green Bear. Shout out Toledo, Ohio. USA Today Sports Columnist Christine Brennan joins me now.

Christine, this was like an audible, grown, as you're watching moment last night. What do you see for S.C. going forward here?

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, CNN SPORTS ANALYST: Yes, Phil, you know, you're an athlete. This is the last thing you want to see, especially for someone who has been so dominant, has had a terrific season, winning all the awards, the heir apparent to Caitlin Clark. The interest is there, obviously a high-profile team, USC, first year in the Big 10, all of it's there. It's all there. And, of course, even in a more human level, the athlete herself, of course, Juju Watkins, just trying to make a great play, she's coming down the court and to see her leg collapse like that.

And, you know, we see athletes get up sometimes and, you know, okay, it's okay. This one, you knew it was bad because not only did, of course, she was riding in agony, but then she couldn't limp off the court. They had to pick her up and carry her off the court, Phil. And that is just absolutely heartbreaking for one of the most important athletes, not just in women's basketball in this country, but in all sports. That magnetic, that electrifying, to see her go down now be out of the tournament and be out for quite a while, it's just really sad.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it is just special to the point of transcending, I think, college basketball over the course of the last couple of years. It was remarkable to watch the team rally last night. But for other teams in the tournament, who are you watching right now? They maybe got a little bit of a better chance to win a national title based on what happened last night.

MATTINGLY: Right. Well, UConn, Connecticut, of course, perennial favor, but hasn't won in a while. They would have been facing the -- if everything goes as planned, they would face USC, so Juju Watkins' team in the Elite 8 final in a few days, not in the Final 4. So, one of those two teams would not make it to the Final 4. And so now I think Connecticut will be the favorite in that game.

USC is still a good team. You know, they could rise to the occasion. I'm sure they will try and do their best, but Connecticut is by far the beneficiary there If they were to win that game, if they do play USC in the Elite 8 final, then they would go on to the Final Four.

[18:45:05]

So, I think there are teams now that will that always had a chance, Phil. But now, there's a bit more of a chance, even though none of these teams would have ever wanted to see, of course, what happened to JuJu Watkins last night?

MATTINGLY: All right. Sixteen teams left. My 9-year-old was mocking me for my lack of depth of knowledge of the remaining teams when he was doing his bracket. Who's -- who's the team were sleeping on? Who -- who do you think people should be paying attention to that maybe they're not right now?

BRENNAN: Right. We're talking women's, right? Well, you know, Texas. I mean, yeah, you know, Texas. I think for sure. And, you know, and how great it is that, you know, you're -- the kids are doing the women's bracket.

I think, you know, I -- you know, I'd like to say a Big 10 team. You and I are both Big 10 people, Maryland and you know, of course, again, USC, UCLA.

I still, you know, would say that Connecticut. And I think UCLA, USC, you know, these are the teams to keep an eye on for sure. I wish we could say there'd be a huge upset, but I think we'll see a lot of chalk still moving forward.

MATTINGLY: Christine Brennan, a Wildcat who for some reason roots for the Wolverines, and I still love her. Thank you. Appreciate it. As always, my friend.

BRENNAN: Thank you, Phil. MATTINGLY: Well, could cognitive decline be detected in your brain

before you grow old? Our next guest says yes. The doctor's advice for the, quote, ageless brain well after your younger years, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:39]

MATTINGLY: In our health lead, do you want to live to be 100? Sounds pretty great, right?

With a caveat. How about living to 100 with a sharp mind and a clear memory? That part is where aging can become difficult. But my next guest says it doesn't have to be.

Dr. Dale Bredesen joins me now. He's the author of the new book, "The Ageless Brain: How to Sharpen and Protect Your Mind for a Lifetime". It's available now. It's fascinating.

And, Dr. Bredesen, appreciate your time.

Just to start, you've personally helped people overcome early stages of memory degeneration, Alzheimer's, dementia. And something you talk about is catching the signs earlier than people think to look for an issue.

You say, quote, dementia is deceptive. It's the grim reaper dressed in a clown suit. We say the wrong word in a sentence and everybody gets a good chuckle. We have a, quote, senior moment, and nobody bats an eye.

And it's not until much later that these individuals realize, or more commonly, someone around them realizes, that there really is a problem.

I guess to start, why does it take so long for many people to realize there is a bigger problem when it comes to something so important, our brain?

DR. DALE BREDESEN, CHIEF SCIENCE OFFICER, APOLLO HEALTH: Yeah, that's a great point. You know, whether you're in your 20s or your 90s or anywhere in between, your most important asset is your brain. So why does it take so long? And it's because we have been told that these minor slips, oh, it's just age. You're getting a little older. It's not a big deal.

And as you know, in the U.S., we spend more than any other country per capita for our health care. But we are not even in the top 30 when it comes to longevity. That is a major problem.

But there is now a fundamental change, a paradigm shift from simple prescription pad medicine, mono pharmaceuticals over toward precision medicine with protocols that are personalized for what's actually driving the problem. There are new blood tests, for example. You can also do. There's new imaging. There are better cognitive tests.

So we do not have to wait for this problem. And at the same time, many people in mainstream medicine are just saying, oh, wait for it, wait for it. This has been a big problem. It does not have to be.

MATTINGLY: Yeah. And that threads together, which with what I think is the most fascinating part of the book, really the core of the book, which is much of what you describe diet, exercise, sleep. It focuses on preventative care.

So often when you hear about Alzheimer's patients, it's been connective -- in connection with palliative care, right? You know how to just make sure that you're treating the symptoms, how to make sure that their life is as good as it can be given they already have that. Why is that?

BREDESEN: Yeah. That's a great point. And as you know, the pharmaceuticals, none of them has provided sustained improvement unfortunately. But we spent 30 years in the lab looking at the basics of this problem. And what you see is that -- this is ultimately a network insufficiency. In other words, you've got a supply, you've got a demand.

And no big surprise as we get a little older, our supply goes down, nutrients, hormones, trophic factors, things like that. Our demand goes up. So, you get to a point where you do not have the support for the 500 trillion synapses that you need, and so you are literally downsizing.

Therefore, addressing these things, improving blood flow, improving oxygenation, finding that sleep apnea, finding these things ahead of time. And of course, now, we've got, as I mentioned, blood tests. You can actually follow this as you improve, so we don't have to wait for it anymore.

MATTINGLY: With the caveat that there is no silver bullet. And you make that very clear as you kind of outline your thesis in the book.

But if you could impart one crucial lifestyle tip to our viewers about what they can start today to help their brain health down the road, what would it be?

BREDESEN: Yeah. And as you mentioned, the silver buckshot. And if you could do one thing today, it would be to get off junk food and to get on to a plant rich, mildly ketogenic diet with, you know, high fiber, high phytonutrients. These things are important.

We generally think of seven things that are all the basics things like exercise and sleep and stress and detox and some brain training and some basic supplements, things like that. It's basically the health that will support that amazing brain of yours.

MATTINGLY: It's invaluable insight. It's a really great book. The book is "The Ageless Brain". It's out now.

Dr. Dale Bredesen, thanks so much for your time, sir.

[18:55:02]

BREDESEN: Thank you, Phil. MATTINGLY: Next, the big decision in Colorado after President Trump

complained about his portrait hanging in the state capitol.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: Topping last leads, Colorado state officials are taking down a painting of President Trump in the state capitol after the president complained. The artist says she intended the portrait to be non-confrontational, but Trump called it, quote, purposefully distorted. In 2019, the Republican Party raised more than $10,000 to have the portrait made.

Well, Good Samaritans are being credited with helping save three people who survived a plane crash in Alaska. The wreckage was spotted on a frozen lake after about 12 hours of searching. Fortunately, all three passengers only had non-life-threatening injuries.

You can follow the show on X @TheLeadCNN. If you ever miss an episode of THE LEAD, you can listen to the show wherever you get your podcasts.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.