Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Appeals Court Rules Against Trump On Deportations; Federal Appeals Court Uphold Temporary Block On Trump's Use Of Alien Enemies Act For Deportations; WH: Trump Still Has Confidence In National Security Team; Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), Is Interviewed About Hegseth Claims Nothing Classified Was Shared In Chat; Trump Announces 25 Percent Tariff On All Cars Not Made In U.S.; Dramatic Video Shows Tufts Student Detained By Federal Agents. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired March 26, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Menu items for a Scranton only exclusive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Awesome blessings, OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Back, as in, I want my baby back, baby back, baby back, baby back, baby back, baby back, baby back. I want my chilies baby back ribs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: There is no word on if Pam is still banned after having one too many at Dunder Mifflin's annual award ceremony known as the Dundies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chili is the new golf course.

HUNT: Right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's what they say.

HUNT: That's what they say.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where business is done. I'm just saying. Where business is done.

HUNT: Thanks, guys. Thanks to all of you for being with us as well. "The Lead" with Phil Mattingly starts right now.

[17:00:41]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN breaking news.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper. We start with breaking news as we follow the developments in several major stories around the White House. We are, just in short order, expecting President Trump to speak from the Oval Office. He's expected to announce new auto tariffs. We will bring you his remarks once they begin.

And of course, this comes as the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg is dropping the receipts. Goldberg publishing more screenshots from this now infamous group chat where top Trump administration officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz discussed imminent military strikes in Yemen. These new screenshots, they show Defense Secretary Hegseth discussing the details of the strikes in writing including 12:15 Eastern, F18 launch, first strike package, 13:45 Trigger based, F18 first strike window starts. Target terrorist is at his known location and should be on time. Also strike drones launch MQ9.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt today saying she would classify those messages as sensitive policy discussions, not war plans as other members of the White House, including President Trump, continue repeating that the information shared was not classified.

Now this as we follow another major story just about an hour ago, a federal appeals court ruling against President Trump temporarily blocking him from using wartime powers to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang. Now his case continues to play out in the lower courts. And that's where we begin. Let's get right into it with my legal experts.

Paula Reid, I want to start with you here. Walk us through this ruling. What exactly happened today?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So here they are maintaining this hold that was placed on Trump wanting to use the sweeping wartime authority to deport people that are allegedly affiliated with a Venezuelan gang. Now, you may remember this dominated the headlines last week as there were also questions about whether the Trump administration abided by that lower court judge putting a hold temporarily on this policy while he assessed the larger constitutional questions here. The Trump administration, not surprisingly, they went up to the appeals court on Monday. Arguments were heard by a panel of three judges. And then today, in a two to one decision, these judges decided that they were going to keep this hold in place.

And that's not terribly surprising because one of the things that the Trump administration would have needed to show in order to get relief here is that they will ultimately succeed on the merits. They will likely try to appeal this to the Supreme Court. It would be surprising if they granted them emergency relief here. But there is a controversial issue here, a constitutional question that will take time to work its way from the lower courts all the way to the Supreme Court. So this is not the final word on whether the president has the authority to do it. The question is, can he do it right now and this appeals court maintaining the hold on this move.

MATTINGLY: You know, Evan, one of the questions that we've heard raised, both I think, in the courts, but also outside as well, is the vetting process that these individuals that were deported actually went through on the front end. We've seen some brought back, at least according to court affidavits. There are still some that are there even as this pause plays out. What are you -- what are you hearing from your intelligence officials?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's part of what you see the concern is, and that's what comes out in the appeals court arguments, for instance, is the concern that some of these people may not be who the government say they are, right? Which is, again, to be declared enemies under this act. You know, the government allegedly went through some vetting process. And we already know, according to some affidavits, as you pointed out, that at least eight women were returned because the Salvadorans determined that they didn't qualify to be held in that prison. Another person was returned, according to the court affidavit, because they are Nicaraguan citizens.

Again, something that the Salvadorans apparently spent more time vetting than the American officials did. And so that's what is at issue here, is whether the intelligence work that was done by the Homeland Security people, whether that was done appropriately. And that goes to the central question, which is, you know, how do these people petition, especially if they're sitting in a prison in a harsh prison, necessarily by Salvadoran standards to petition to determine whether or not they actually should be there or not.

[17:05:01]

MATTINGLY: And, Elie, that's kind of what I want to take to you. Elie Honig joining us. I want to start with the two to one that we saw here. One of those two was completely silent, if I recall correctly, from when this was actually heard. So we didn't have a really good idea.

It wasn't along partisan lines. One, I think, was Bush appointee, Patricia Millett, who was appointed by President Obama here. What do you take from the actual kind of how this broke down?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Phil, so two big takeaways from the ruling. First of all, one of the arguments that the Trump administration was making, and we've heard them say this publicly is, this court has no jurisdiction to even get involved in this case. They cannot decide, they cannot second guess anything the president does on these immigration matters. Well, all the judges here, all three of them reject that premise. They say we can get involved here.

We can have the power to make a judicial decision and we will do that. That's number one. The second thing that I think is really important, and this was a split, two to one, the thing that ultimately the administration, the Trump administration has to prove here and that they allege is that this was an invasion or a predatory incursion made by a foreign government.

Now, I've said before on the air, all of those terms sound like real stretches as applied here. And there's a whole section of the opinion where the court sort of dissects those meticulously. And the two judges, the majority conclude essentially that. This is a temporary ruling, but they say based on what we have in front of us, that is a real stretch to apply those terms. And we don't think those terms are ultimately going to apply to this situation here.

MATTINGLY: You know, Bill, the question, and Paula got it just a little bit, but just kind of looking forward here, what is the Trump administration's next move? How do they play going forward?

WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, it's a little complicated because this particular act has not been invoked in many, many years, but it has been invoked now and it's been acted upon. And I think the administration is making a kind of a case of first impression here that if the countries from which these alleged criminals came sent them out knowing that they were individuals with violent tendencies and an agenda, that it falls under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. So, it'll really be something for the Supreme Court to decide.

MATTINGLY: Paula, to that point, I think there's -- you live in this world. We expect a lot of things to end up at the Supreme Court if they haven't already. What is the pathway here? What's the administration thinking? You're so in the weeds on their legal strategy. How are they going to approach this?

REID: They've always approached this as a long game. I've been saying this since Trump was elected in November. They knew every one of his executive actions, every one of his attempts here to use a very expensive definition of executive power would be challenging court. And they knew they would lose at the local level because often these challenges are filed in districts that are more friendly to the challengers. But they believe that they can get the constitutional question.

Right now they're asking for emergency relief. If we want to do this, we want to do it now. But there's a larger constitutional question, and they feel confident that once they get that larger constitutional question before the conservative supermajority at the Supreme Court, that they will prevail on many of these issues. Not all of them, I think it's an open question even within the administration --

PEREZ: Yes.

REID: -- on birthright citizenship, maybe this one as well. But they have always viewed this as a long game. But they have a very impatient boss. So they're always trying to push us along as quickly as they can. But again, they have not yet ruled on the larger constitutional issue, the use of this particular act of war power, how the process played out.

Those questions are going to take time, and they could ultimately reach the Supreme Court. But that's how they've always seen this, as a long game. They don't get too flustered when they lose at the lower court. Now, their boss, the president, he's never happy when he loses. Everybody's got a boss, but they believe that their chances in the long term are good.

We'll see if that pans out.

MATTINGLY: You know, Evan, to that point, when you talk to folks over the Justice Department, look, they are overwhelmed, I think, at this point, just given the sheer scale of what the civil division is dealing with right now, what the lawyers and the team is doing. But this idea of executive authority, of which there is clearly an expansive view inside the White House and presumably with the people that they've appointed over at DOJ as well. How much say are they getting into these moves that we've seen?

PEREZ: They're not getting a lot of say. Look, a lot of this is coming from the top. It's coming from the White House. It's coming from Stephen Miller. It's coming from a decision to pick fights like this one.

For instance, you know, they could have deported all of these people without using this law. They could have really just gotten people on these planes. Venezuela is accepting deportees. They could be doing a lot of this without the extra sort of show that they're putting on, right? But they really want this fight.

They want this fight over this law. They want the fight over birthright citizenship. And it's for, you know, additional reasons, right, which is this is what the president ran on. And they want this big confrontation with the -- with the judiciary and everything.

[17:10:00]

So, again, they could be using passenger planes to deport people for a lot less money than they're using military planes to do the same thing. But again, part of this is a production. We're living in season two of Trump, right? And that's what this is.

MATTINGLY: And I think, Elie, just to close with you, one of the difficult parts about the production is we don't necessarily have a lot of visibility into what's going on here on a day to day basis. We see it sometimes with court declarations, we see it sometimes with DOJ attorneys to the extent they're willing. How much more will we learn about how this is all working, what the legal theories are, how they're actually the process that's in place as this continues to play out?

HONIG: So it's a really important point, Phil, because we've all gotten very used to the criminal process, where so much of it is transparent, so much of it is set forth in court, in indictments, in the evidence, in trials. We have well established burdens of proof that prosecutors have to reach. But we have to sort of shift that whole perspective over to a different ballpark here, which is the immigration area of law, where there's so much less transparency. And the main way we're going to learn about what's happening behind closed doors, frankly, is through these lawsuits and through decisions like the one we just saw. There are several lawsuits challenging this and other immigration and deportation moves.

Much of that ordinarily happens behind closed doors. And important to keep in mind the people who are subject to deportation, they get some due process rights, but they don't get the full due process rights that are due to a criminal defendant. And what courts are trying to do is find that right spot in between those two extremes. MATTINGLY: Yes, it's a really important point.

Bill, final thoughts here as we kind of gather what we've seen both over the course of the last couple hours, but really the first two and a half months of this administration.

BRENNAN: Well, I think as Elie points out and as the other commentators have mentioned, you know, this is really a bit of a Hail Mary pass. But when you look at it from the perspective of the administration, they probably expected to have some setbacks in the district and the circuit court. But when you think about it, a two to one decision in the circuit court isn't a bad scale of numbers for them. You know, they're getting accomplished what they ran on. And I think the Supreme Court will ultimately have to address this.

And I think they're approaching this from a novel and unique standpoint, invoking this 1798 Act. And if it does work, it'll open the floodgates to really accomplishing what the president promised when he ran. And that's deporting people who have a known tendency for violence. So I don't think it's been unexpected on the administration's part. And it's, you know, it's a nine inning game.

So we'll see what happens when the Supreme Court takes it up.

MATTINGLY: Both telegraphed, but also novel and unique. I like your word choice there, Bill. Really appreciate you guys. It's a really great conversation. Certainly have much more as we continue to cover this.

Well, in the wake of this ruling, we're standing by to hear from the president at the White House. He's set to make announcement on auto tariffs. How much will he actually say about that? Or will he address the other big story that's been dominating Washington, the group chat controversy after his top administration officials involved today again denied classified details were discussed. Keep it here.

We'll follow it all.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:17:26]

MATTINGLY: The breaking news. We are standing by to hear from President Trump at the White House. Believe the White House press poll has just walked into the Oval Office. Trump is expected to announce new auto tariffs. But of course it comes as his White House continues to grapple with the fallout of the Signal group chat.

Top administration officials, even President Trump continuing to insist that no classified information was shared.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Nobody's texting war plans and that's all I have to say about that. TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The conversation was candid and sensitive, but as the president, national security adviser stated, no classified information was shared.

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. I didn't transfer any classified information.

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There was no classified information transmitted. There were no war plans discussed.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There was no classified information as I understand it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Let's go straight to CNN's Kaitlan Collins at the White House.

Kaitlan, you were in the briefing today. Obviously administration officials continuing to be aggressive in their pushback. What was your takeaway from what you saw?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANHOR: Yes, Phil, they've been bracing for these texts to come out from Jeffrey Goldberg releasing all of the messages that he did not initially publish after they were arguing that it didn't contain any classified information. And that's an assertion that they're standing by even after the president was personally briefed on these messages. Karoline Leavitt confirmed to us during that briefing that yes, Trump had seen these new messages that were published by Jeffrey Goldberg of what was said by his top national security aides inside that group text and that he still believes that there was no classified information contained in them. We read some of the messages aloud during the briefing. This is what Karoline Leavitt had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: One on a follow up on something you just said. But since we have these messages released and you said that the president has now personally reviewed them. At the chat, at one point, Pete Hegseth wrote 14:15 strike drones on target. And in all caps he said, this is when the first bombs will definitely drop. Does the president feel that he was misled by his national security advisors, whoever it was that told him there was no classified information in there now that he's seen these messages?

LEAVITT: I've now been asked and answered this question three times by the both of you and I've given you my answer. The president feels the same today as he did yesterday.

Philip (ph).

COLLINS: Sorry on my follow up on what you had just said.

LEAVITT: Go ahead, Philip. COLLINS: I have a --

LEAVITT: Kaitlan, I'm not taking your follow up. Philip.

COLLINS: I have a follow up on something you just said though, Karoline, that's regarding --

LEAVITT: Kaitlan, I'm not taking your follow up. Philip, go ahead. I have called on you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Now the follow up question was regarding Jeffrey Goldberg because part of their defense here, Phil, has been to not only say that none of this information that was included in that group chat, what was sent by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, including the times of these strikes, when those bombs were going to be falling as the message that I had read there from what he had said to the other officials inside that group chat. They've also been attacking Jeffrey Goldberg, who is the reporter here, who was inadvertently added to that message. They have maintained and continued to criticize him throughout this, even though, of course, it was the national security adviser who clearly had his contact information and added him to this group message, something that later when we heard from the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who confirmed that, yes, he was also inside that group chat, he said he believed it was a big mistake that Goldberg was added to that message.

[17:20:39]

And so what we'll be watching for here as the president is inside the Oval Office with reporters right now talking about tariffs, is whether his tone or his view of this changes differently because, yes, he has publicly been very defensive of his national security team, Karoline Leavitt said earlier to us that he has great trust in them, that is something that everyone is obviously watching very closely now that these messages are out there. And even Republicans have said they do believe this was sensitive information. And some of them have argued they believe it's information that was so critical it should have been classified.

MATTINGLY: Yes, we've seen often, and you know better than anybody, the president has full unequivocal support until he doesn't. But at least at this moment, it has been very clear, still supports his team. Kaitlan Collins, great work as always in the briefing room. Thanks so much.

And of course you can look out for Kaitlan just a few hours on "The Source." It's weeknights at 9:00 Eastern here on CNN.

I want to bring in my panel now. And Sabrina, I want to start with you, former deputy Pentagon press secretary. One of the oddities of the day, at least for me, somebody who hasn't worked in this space like you guys have, the war plan versus attack plan semantic debate that's been going on, the administration saying just about everybody, they changed how they framed what the text messages said and therefore we got them and they were misleading. Explain to people what the distinction is between war plan and attack plan here.

SABRINA SINGH, FORMER DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: I honestly think it's just a game of semantics here and they're trying to drive a wedge. But the reality is that what Pete Hegseth put in that chat with the timeline, with the fact that their F18, the different aircrafts, the MQ9s, were going to be up in a matter of minutes, that's an operational military plan. So no matter how you characterize it, whether it's a war plan, an operations plan, a military plan, they all mean the same. It was an operation.

And the fact that he put the sequencing, the tick tock and the timeline in a -- in a group thread instead of keeping that on a classified side, I mean he physically had to type that in to put that into a Signal thread, which is something that was probably on what we would call the high side on a secret or above classified side. And so I think even though we're parsing words here, what Secretary Hegseth did was clearly deserved some more scrutiny.

MATTINGLY: Go ahead.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I mean, listen, imagine it's January 5, 1944, June 5, 1944, and you say Normandy June 6 landing craft and paratroopers, right? I mean that's effectively the quality of this information here. It is specific times 12:15, 13:45, 14:10, including the exact time when the bombs are going to start dropping, the weapons systems, F18s, Tomahawks, the country you're attacking, and right down to the specificity of at least one human target involved here.

SINGH: Right. Yes.

SCIUTTO: And the intelligence collection that followed, or actually that preceded the strike, saying, we saw him walk into that building where his girlfriend lives, I believe that was the context, that is all of the elements of the most sensitive intelligence you have, which is timing, target, weapons involved and intelligence collection and perhaps, you know, how successful that intelligence collection was.

I spoke to a senior U.S. military official currently serving in the Pentagon with Pete Hegseth who said, quote, "I don't see any way this is not classified." I spoke to a former senior U.S. military commander who said the following, "Until the strike goes, it's absolutely classified as the lives of our pilots depend on secrecy." This official went on to provide more detail to say, if your adversary here knows this information in advance, timing and target, they could do a number of things. They could leave those sites and you don't even have to know the exact site, just know that they're coming for you. Leave command and control centers, move communications facilities, but also crucially, mass more anti-aircraft and anti-missile firing positions and resources that you could conceivably target and overwhelm the U.S. pilots.

That's the most sensitive thing. And any, and Sabrina knows this --

SINGH: Yes. SCIUTTO: -- because she worked in the Pentagon. Anytime I've done a story or say have been embedded where I know, because I have to be in X place prior to an operation, where I know time or location, it's been made very clear to me that is the most sensitive intelligence, and therefore, you cannot report it. And we're going to keep this close hold priority.

[17:25:01]

SINGH: Yes.

MATTINGLY: Go ahead.

SINGH: Well, I mean, exactly just to add on to what Jim said, when I was at the Pentagon, we never even confirmed an operation had happened until our fighter pilots were safe, until they were out of the range, that they could be hit by anything. And so the fact that, you know, Hegseth put this into a group chat while we had fighter pilots in the air, that put them at risk, that put the men and women who wear a uniform at risk. And so, to the guy who's always saying, you know, this -- he's going to restore the warrior ethos, which is all about the mission, I mean, he literally put the mission at risk. And so, I think we're, you know, going to see more. And I hope that, you know, Congress really does investigate this issue so it never happens again.

MATTINGLY: Yes, some bipartisan kind of green shoots of that. We'll see how that plays out. I mean, John Thun said it best. A Republican made a mistake, acknowledge it, fix it, don't let it happen again. Seems like a pretty simple solution, one the White House has not actually pursued up to this point.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

SINGH: Right.

MATTINGLY: We'll see what we hear from the president as we continue to wait for his remarks from the Oval Office. Jim Sciutto, Sabrina Singh, thank you guys very much.

Well, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee pressed members of the Trump administration who were on that group chat. We'll be joined next with what he got out of the hearing and the broad questions Jim Himes still has for those members.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:30:31]

MATTINGLY: We're back. In our Politics Lead, as the fallout continues from the signal group chat with the Trump administration. Today, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe faced grilling from the House Intelligence Committee. Joining me now is the top Democrat on that committee, one of the congressmen who questioned them today, Democratic Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut. He is the ranking member of the Permanent Committee on -- Subcommittee on Intelligence. Congressman, one of the things I -- I believe you were trying to get at today when I was watching the testimony is were there discrepancies with what we heard yesterday before some of these messages or the full kind of record of the messages came out versus in the wake of them? Do you feel like members of the Senate were misled by either John Ratcliffe or Tulsi Gabbard in their testimony yesterday?

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT), RANKING MEMBER, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: You know, in their testimony yesterday, both of those two said that they didn't recall any discussion on that signal thread of weapons or targets or timing. And lo and behold, this morning, when Jeffrey Goldberg of "The Atlanta" releases the actual tech string, we see incredible specificity, military time, F-18s launching at this point, weather good, go MQ9 reapers. Now that is a degree of specificity that could have gotten our sailors and airmen hurt. And there's a reason why we don't ever publicize that kind of stuff before we put men and women in harm's way. So remember, their answer was, I don't think so. I don't recall.

Now, you know, people can judge for themselves how much you should recall those sorts of details over a mere two-week period. So if I were a senator, yes, I would have some questions about -- about the straightforwardness of the answers that they got yesterday.

MATTINGLY: You talk about the specificity in the message them -- messages themselves. I want to play what we heard from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier today. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: There's no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: What's your response to that, which is not just a Hegseth position, we've heard it from several administration officials.

HIMES: Yes, of course. Look, there's -- there's a -- there are any number of absolutely bizarre defenses for this outrageous behavior. You just heard one of them, which is, oh, gosh, it wasn't that specific. Well, it was specific enough that if the Houthis had known that the attack was coming, that -- that there were F-18s involved. That's a very specific airplane. You know, that MQ9 reapers would -- were involved. They've shot those down before. They could have moved their assets in such a way to take down one of our pilots. So they're getting all wrapped up in the actual. About exactly how specific these plans were.

And, oh, by the way, was it classified? You know what? I don't know if it was classified or not. It absolutely should have been classified. Oh, is it a violation of the public record. Folks, you made a catastrophic mistake that could have killed American service people. So what I didn't hear Pete Hegseth say, which frankly, is what needs to be said by all of these folks, especially Pete Hegseth, is, oh, my God, I made a terrible mistake. I am sorry. And we're going to do a study and -- and an investigation to determine what went wrong. It's never going to happen again. And there will be accountability.

All of those things which they would demand of every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine that works for them, they would demand that right off the bat. They haven't yet gotten to any of that. And until they start dealing with this like adults, because it was a very serious mistake, you know, this -- this issue's not going away.

MATTINGLY: Do you think they will reach that point? And the reason I ask is there's a number of your Republican colleagues who don't often break with the White House on really anything. And -- and while it's somewhat muted, they have made very clear. They're national security Republicans they're saying, look, this was a problem. It would be great if they could just acknowledge they messed up, move on. Which is more than we usually hear from Republicans with this administration. When you talk to them, what are they telling you behind the scenes about efforts to try and get answers or try and have accountability?

HIMES: Well, again -- again it's an -- it's an absolutely bizarre thing. I mean, you know, we -- we, again, we can get caught up in the esoteric of what's classified or what's not. But anybody who has raised a toddler, a toddler, forget about the Secretary of Defense knows, that when the toddler makes a mistake, the toddler says sorry and learns not to do it again. That's both what we do in this country, and it sure as hell what -- is what we do inside the military.

And, oh, by the way, you know, how this issue goes away. If the Secretary of Defense and Mike Waltz stop attacking Jeffrey Goldberg, who did not ask to get onto that signal text, they stop attacking Jeffrey Goldberg and they start doing what we would demand of five year olds, which is to say, I'm sorry, I made a mistake. It's not going to happen again. There will be accountability. When they start saying those things, we'll move on to talking about other things.

[17:35:11]

MATTINGLY: Yes, we'll see if the President makes any steps in that direction. I would be highly suspect of that happening. But we will certainly be watching the Oval Office as he speaks right now. Congressman Jim Himes always appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.

HIMES: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, just Moments ago, President Trump's big announcement on auto tariffs was made a 25 percent tariff on cars not made in America. His comments just in. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:39:58]

MATTINGLY: We have been monitoring President Trump in the Oval Office. Technically, an announcement of 25 percent tariffs on autos. He has also now weighed in on the issue that has been bogging down his administration for the better part of the last several days, signal gate. This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Investigation to find out what went wrong. Maybe --

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Who's responsible?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mike Waltz says that he's responsible.

TRUMP: Well, yes, Mike Waltz, I guess he said he claimed responsibility, I would imagine had nothing to do with anyone else. It was Mike, I guess. I don't know. I always thought it was Mike. But again, the attacks were unbelievably successful. And that's ultimately what you should be talking about. I think, you know, Mike -- Mike did, he took responsibility for it.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Say it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Should Secretary Hegseth consider his position over the signal?

TRUMP: Hegseth is doing a great job. He had nothing to do with this. Hegseth, how do you bring Hegseth into it? He had nothing to do with it. Look, look, it's all a witch hunt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: We are continuing to monitor the President as he takes questions from reporters in the Oval Office related to that tariff announcement and obviously a lot else that's going on with this administration. It is worth noting several officials over the course of their public testimony, seemed to put most of this at the feet of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The President very, very explicitly backing Hegseth, making clear he didn't believe he had any role in this whatsoever. Although he was the one who was putting the information, the specific details about the ongoing operation or soon to be starting operation in the text chain itself, saying Waltz had taken responsibility for it and he was the one that everybody was looking at. Also said, I guess several times. So it seems like not trying to take full ownership of what's been happening over the course of the last 48 to 72 hours. We will keep an eye on those comments.

But we do want to talk about your money, the Money Lead. Just moments ago, the President announcing new tariffs on all cars not made in the United States. CNN's Matt Egan is following what I think was an unexpected announcement. Matt, we'd been told that kind of the sector by sector tariffs might be pushed off a little bit beyond April 2nd. I think just a couple of days ago. Now this is happening, announced today. What do these tariffs look like?

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Yes, Phil, this looks like a major escalation in the President's trade war, and it is one that could significantly impact consumers. So just a few moments ago, President Trump announced this 25 percent tariff on all cars not made in the United States. He says that these tariffs kick in on April 2nd. And the United States will start collecting on April 3rd. What's not entirely clear at this point is whether or not these tariffs apply to auto parts or just to finish vehicles. That is a crucial detail. We're still going through the details and the waiting for the actual executive order that will spell all of this out.

But the goal from the President here is to try to get auto companies to make more cars in America. Of course, it would take years to build factories in the United States. Take a listen to the President's announcement just a few moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: This is the beginning of Liberation Day in America. This is very modest. And what we're going to be doing is a 25 percent tariff on all cars that are not made in the United States. If they're made in the United States, there's absolutely no tariff. We start off with a 2.5 percent base, which is what were at, and we go to 25 percent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EGAN: Now analysts have warned that tariffs on cars and car parts will increase prices for Americans. And it's not entirely clear that Americans are going to be able to afford these higher prices because car prices are already near all-time highs. And so tariffs making them even more expensive could be significant. The problem here, of course, is that for years North America has treated these -- this auto market like it's one country, right? This is not looked at as three different countries because of the free trade agreements.

And so cars have parts that are made in Mexico and they're made in Canada before a vehicle ever arrives to a dealership. So the devil here is going to be in the details, Phil, and we're going to have to wait and see whether or not these tariffs actually kick in now, next week.

MATTINGLY: Yes, both the timing of implementation. But to your point, Matt, the details here, I've been told there's a carve out for auto parts, but it wasn't entirely how that actually works, how that looks absolutely critical for consumers as well as the market. Matt Eagan, great reporting as always, my friend. Thanks so much.

We're here to discuss Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha and Republican strategist Matt Gorman. Chuck, first to you, I want to play something President Trump said today about why he's moving forward with these tariffs? Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Car companies and every other form of company, they're pouring back into our country at levels never seen before. They're all coming in so they don't have to pay tariffs. It's very simple. Because if you build your product in the USA, there is no tariff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Chuck that -- look, economists don't necessarily agree with how the President frames his arguments about tariffs. However, this idea of look, reshore your operations, reshore your manufacturing here and you don't have anything to worry about. Why -- why doesn't that work in your mind?

[17:45:15]

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, it -- it works if the jobs actually came back. I'm one of the few folks on T.V. that 20 years ago my factory job in East Texas where we made tires for cars was offshore to China. Those jobs are not coming back. He tells everybody that he's going to bring all these jobs back because it's great messaging and all Americans, even this Democratic American, love that. But what he's not saying is the point you made earlier with Matt is the devil's in the details. I hate to tell all the American consumers right now that Chevrolet, that Chrysler that you're driving right now, 80 percent of all the parts for that thing are made in Mexico and Canada.

If those in fact could be reshored over here and they can make the price of cars cheaper, I'd be all in. Price is just going to go up with this tariff deal.

MATTINGLY: You know, Matt, to that point, you've had the administration officials making very clear from the President on down, look, there's going to be some disruption. What he's trying to do, what his team is trying to do is a complete realignment of -- of the global trading system. Look, it's not an overstatement to say that, but the capacity and the patience with those disruptions, I think is the very real political question right now.

You know, you have an economic group telling CNN, quote, the cost of producing vehicles built at U.S. plants will rise by between 3,500 to $12,000. When you campaign on lowering prices, Matt, you know, what is the level of willingness from his supporters, from voters, from Americans to deal with price increases?

MATT GORMAN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, TIM SCOTT PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: I -- I think Republicans need to take a page and learn a lesson from what the Democrats failed to do with inflation, right. I think what Democrats did last time, they were trying to the next week and the next week and the next week, transitory corporations, it was an excuse, right.

They need to be able to tell a story on this. I think what you're trying to see is the outlines of one. I think part of it involves the fact that you need to be able to say need cash to finance the debt when you have a previous president, put the press -- put the country on a credit card for four years and a lot of spending with very high interest rates. You need to be able to have cash and capital to pay that down and refinance that. So I would expect that to be woven into the messaging from the White House as well too.

And that story I think can help alleviate some of the traps that Democrats fell into with just became with inflation. It was excuse after excuse.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's an important point. There -- there is actually a fulsome economic plan from this administration. We only talk about tariffs. That's largely because of the guy who's running the administration. There's a lot of moving parts today. I really appreciate both you guys coming on. Thanks so much.

[17:47:38]

Well, new details just in after a chilling video into CNN today. A grad student at Tufts University north of Boston taken into custody by immigration authorities. The arrest in a residential street captured on a neighborhood surveillance camera. What the Department of Homeland Security just said about the arrest. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: In the Law and Justice Lead, striking new video of a student's arrest. The student is a Tufts University graduate student taken into custody by plain clothes Federal agents near her home outside of Boston. You see it on your screen right now. The woman is a Turkish national in the U.S. on a legal F1 visa. We're just learning she's being held now in a facility in Louisiana. CNN's Gloria Pazmino joins me now. Gloria, tell us about what happened here.

GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, what you are seeing in there is video of Rumeysa Ozturk. She is a Tufts University student, as you said, and we have obtained this video captured by a neighbor's door camera. And what you see in the video is office waiting for her on the street. And when she approaches the -- this part of the sidewalk, they jump out of their cars, they approach her, they surround her. You can see that they take her phone away from her. They put her in handcuffs, they remove her backpack, and they begin to lead her away. They put her inside an SUV and they drive away.

In the video, you can hear for a brief moment as police -- as the officers, I should say, identify themselves as police. We don't get an indication of why they are arresting her or where they are taking her. Her lawyer, who I've been speaking to in the last several hours, told me that she has finally confirmed that Ozturk was transferred to a facility in Louisiana from Massachusetts where this took place. What we do not know yet is why she is being detained.

But this is yet another international student who appears to be targeted for immigration enforcement by the Trump administration. We have reached out to the Department of Homeland Security, who confirmed the arrest and told us in part, quote, DHS and ICE investigations found Ozturk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans. A visa is a privilege, not a right. Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is ground for visa issuance to be terminated.

[17:55:00]

Phil, the question here is what they are talking about when they refer to activities in support of Hamas. And I've asked officials that exact question. If that's the reason why this person is being detained, what does that look like? They are not answering that question. Presumably they're going to have to do so in court. For now, this video sending a chilling effect throughout the community, not just there in Boston, but across the international student community who continues to apparently be targeted for immigration enforcement by the Trump administration. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Gloria Pazmino, important reporting. Thanks so much.

Well, up ahead, President Trump's new comments just moments ago on the group chat saga that had one of his national security advisers adding a journalist to the text conversation about a strike in Yemen. Much more at the top of the hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)