Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Judge Orders White House to Preserve Chat Messages on Military Strikes; Canadian and European Officials Slam Trump's Auto Tariffs; HHS to Slash 10,000 Full-Time Employees in Major Overhaul. With Nowhere Else To Go, Migrants Await Asylum In Panama Shelter; New Episode Explores Lance Armstrong's Doping Scandal. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired March 27, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

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

This hour, a federal judge orders the Trump administration to preserve all messages sent in that group chat about sensitive U.S. military strikes. But what if those messages were already deleted? Our legal experts are standing by.

Plus, car prices could start to rise in just a few weeks after President Trump's new tariff announcement and experts warned that could mean you pay up to an extra $12,000 per car. We're breaking down more potential impacts.

And Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announcing a major overhaul cutting 10,000 full-time employees across federal health agencies. Could those cuts affect hospitals? What about doctor's offices and your family's medical care?

The Lead Tonight, an emergency hearing today over the Signal group chat where Federal Judge James Boasberg, who you may recognize the name from an ongoing immigration court fight with the White House, has ordered the Trump administration preserve all Signal messages from a five-day period earlier this month.

We start things off with CNN's Alayna Treene at the White House. Alayna, what's the White House saying about how this is developed?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, look, Phil, this is clearly, one, not one of the White House's favorite judges. It's probably one of the president's least favorite judges. We've seen him now attack this judge, Federal Judge Boasberg, multiple times over the past couple weeks, mainly over a different case. Now, this was at random, but he was assigned to this case as well.

Now, we have heard from the Department of Justice as well that they're trying to find and maintain these messages to comply with this order. But I think the big picture here really is that we are now on day four, Phil, of talking about this story, about talking about these Signal messages. And this is something very clearly the White House wants to move on from. They've, from the beginning, tried to downplay this, to try to deny, so the most egregious things in those messages, tried to disparage the reporter at the heart of it all. And yet we are now seeing not only from the courts, but also on Capitol Hill that this story is going to be kept alive.

I'd remind you as well that we know that, officially, Roger Wicker, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he has requested an inspector general's investigation into this. He's also requested that his committee receive a classified briefing. And so all together, we are going to be learning a lot more about this. And that's really, I think, something that, of course, this White House does not want. We already saw them yesterday try to almost change the subject by having that tariff announcement. They are really trying to move on from this.

And, again, I think to keep in mind is just how much vitriol we have seen from the president as it goes to this judge specifically. That is only going to continue moving forward with this case. We'll see how it goes from here. There was a notable moment as well when the judge on the bench kind of joked that he'd be giving a written order on this as well. That's kind of a joke to formally when we know a couple weeks ago in an entirely different case on the Alien Enemies Act and how the president was using that sweeping wartime authority, you know, a joke about how that was a verbal order, making sure that this one was a written order. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Yes, levity via pacer. Judges love them.

Alayna Train, thanks so much, over at the White House.

Let's now bring in CNN's Natasha Bertrand. Natasha, you've been talking to intelligence officials to national security officials about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in the wake of this. Well, let's just go ahead and call it a bit of a fiasco. What are you learning?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Phil. So, in speaking to current and former U.S. officials, they all seem to agree here that arguably the most egregious conduct on this chat did come from Secretary of Defense Hegseth, who, of course, laid out in explicit detail when and how this strike on the Houthis in Yemen was going to be carried out, including exact timings as well as the types of aircraft that would be used, the kinds of weapons systems. And one former intelligence official put it very bluntly to us. They said the egregious actor here is Hegseth, quote, he's in the bullseye now because he puts all this out on a Signal chat.

Now, we also discussed with multiple sources inside the DOD and inside the broader national security apparatus how this reflects on Hegseth's first two months as secretary of defense. And they all say that this episode, this fiasco really underscores the kind of rocky start he's had to his tenure as secretary of defense. He is known to be very free willing in his conversations with general officers, he will often just verbally tell them to do something and not leave a paper trail. He relies a lot on gut instinct when he's talking to his senior leaders. And this really underscores again what officials say is a carelessness and a desire to put kind of optics over actual substance. Of course, he's very preoccupied with lethality and we saw in that group chat that he did appear to be boasting about the U.S. military's plans here to conduct this operation in a way that did not ultimately protect that operational security, even though he said in the chat, quote, our OPSEC is clean. Phil?

MATTINGLY: It turned out not to be true.

[18:05:00]

Natasha Bertrand, great reporting, thank you very much.

I want to go now to Capitol Hill, where obviously it's Capitol Hill, so CNN's Manu Raju is somewhere around there. It looks like Russell Rotunda, I believe, today.

Manu, there was a comment from Kevin Cramer, the North Dakota Republican senator, that was so striking when compared to the comment from Kevin Cramer like 24 hours ago when he said it's, quote, time to move on from the Signal chat issue. How are other Republicans feeling here?

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, because Kevin Cramer told me yesterday that he was concerned, quite concerned about the messaging and the discussion that happened on Signal, said that it was problematic, should not have occurred, these are very sensitive discussions and that should not have happened, and they should admit their mistake and figure out, make sure it does not happen again. But that's pretty much it.

There are a lot of Republicans who simply believe that this story should go away. They're not ready to investigate it. The House is not planning to conduct any large scale investigation or really any investigation at all. And on the Senate side, the Armed Services Committee, yes, has requested an inspector general investigation, but it's unclear the extent to which they will do their own investigation.

And in talking to Republican senators, all of them are making clear that despite all the controversy surrounding the defense secretary, that they're willing to stand by him for now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Do you have confidence in him as defense secretary still?

SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IA): I do. And this is a call that the president will make. But I know that the NSC is going to scrutinize this, and then they'll get back to us and let us know.

REP. RICH MCCORMICK (R-GA): Yes, it was unintentional. It was a mistake. I think it's been admitted as a mistake. It was wrong. It won't happen again.

RAJU: Hegseth has not admitted that it was a mistake.

MCCORMICK: I haven't heard him not admit it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't see where investigation is needed at this time.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): In her opening statement, DNI Gabbard should have said this never should have happened. We made a major error.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And then last comment come from Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who does sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee, saying that the director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, should have at least apologized for what happened in her comments and just her involvement in that Signal group chat.

But if that's not what we have heard from the administration, the question is, will the Republicans in Congress do anything beyond what they've said so far, or summarizing concerns? Will they actually mount a full scale investigation? The signs are at the moment, Phil, the answer is no.

MATTINGLY: Manu Raju live from Capitol Hill, thanks so much.

My panel is here now. And Jamie Gangel, I want to start with you because the issue that I think the administration has, and I think we're all kind of practiced observers of Washington on some level, is you let this hang out for days on end and more things are going to start coming out there. There's a Wall Street Journal report out that reveals Israel provided sensitive intelligence from a human source in Yemen on a key Houthi military operative, targeted in an attack described by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.

I think that's what, when a lot of us were reading this, were saying that looks like it's coming from some type of specific sources or methods. This was, of course, the secretary of defense yesterday.

(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: The reason I ask is because, again, maybe not explicitly, but you can connect dots based on what we saw.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, when I spoke to intelligence officials about the text chain, they immediately said that's either a human source or a drone, or both. It doesn't take a lot. So, so much for no sources or methods.

Look, according to The Wall Street Journal, these Israeli officials have complained about this Mike Waltz text, which became public. The first target, their top missile guy, we had positive I.D. of him walking into his girlfriend's building and it now collapsed. He didn't describe the source, but in another text, he said, the U.S. has multiple positive I.D.

As you well know, there is nothing more serious than a human source. That is a life or death situation. It also is going to make allies less inclined to cooperate when they see that we are, you know, not being careful. I mean, the words we're hearing are reckless, egregious, amateur. And, you know, now with this Wall Street Journal reporting, as one source said to me, it's getting worse and worse.

MATTINGLY: Lauren, to that point, it's, I feel like from the jump, you have Republicans on Capitol Hill doing everything but putting a neon sign above their heads saying, just say you messed up, it's never going to happen again, and move on. The administration hasn't done that. And I understand the posture that the president and his team take in these moments. Do you think they will change course on that at all?

LAUREN TOMLINSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think they're going to have to. So, Mike Waltz did do a Fox News interview in which he acknowledged that this was a big mess up and that, you know, there was some debate about like, you know, he took full responsibility of the fact that it was his contact and everything else.

[18:10:07]

So, Mike Waltz at least is, you know, going out and saying that I won't do this again. I learned from this mistake. This is bad. However, Hegseth's position, I think, is on the double down defensive is a really bad look. And especially as secretary of defense, he has to inspire confidence in his troops that he will protect them, that when he sends them out on missions, that everything is being done for them to complete that mission and be successful.

And him denying this, I think, and not acknowledging how big of an F up it was really undermines that confidence. You know, if you're sending your loved ones out, you want to know that they're being taken care of.

So, the Republicans on Capitol Hill, I think, are playing a little bit of politics with this. They want to be supportive of the president. They want to enact his agenda and get back to enacting his agenda as quickly as possible because they have a unified front here for at least two years, but they need this to go away. And so they don't want to do the hearings, they don't want to do the investigations in a public manner. I think there's lots of questions and lots of pressure that's happening behind the scenes. I wouldn't be surprised if there's going to be closed door briefings and other things that happen in the future. But they are saying, guys, let's move on from this. Just give us somebody, give us a scapegoat and let's keep going because we have a lot to do.

MATTINGLY: Meghan, you've never dealt with a crisis comm situation before in your political career. I think what's interesting, you know, to the point you're making. Pete Hegseth clearly understands how to communicate with his audience of one, and I think Trump has responded to that in a very positive manner. And I think the question becomes, okay, that's fine, but you have a broader audience now, both on Capitol Hill especially, but also inside the Pentagon, the U.S. troops. How sustainable is his position?

MEGHAN HAYES, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: It's not sustainable because Donald Trump may be his audience of one that he's replying to when he's out there on a tarmac. But the media and every -- all the members of Congress now are starting to ask a lot of questions, and Donald Trump doesn't want to be questioned.

There was a poll out saying that 60 percent of Republicans have an issue with this and find a problem with it that came out from yesterday. Those numbers are just going to increase, and that is what Donald Trump is going to have a problem with. So, he can say whatever he wants, so he is blue in the face, but Donald Trump is going to start listening to everybody else.

And the other thing is inside the Pentagon, people are saying it's chaotic, it's disrespectful. There's no semblance of any sort of order, and that's all top down. That is him. The Pentagon is a place that is very top down. And if that is what everyone is saying around there, can you imagine what people are saying on the battlefield, what people are saying in other countries about having confidence in the United States and our intelligence that they're offering us or we're giving them, this is weakening our country every single day this goes on.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And you hit on a key point. There's an agenda. The Republicans want to move on. That is very complicated and very tedious and arduous of a process every day, also blocks that as well.

Guys, thank you very much, great conversation.

Well, we've got much more on our breaking news. What happens if the White House doesn't comply with the judge's order in this Signal case? Our legal experts are here in studio to break it all down.

Plus, the impacts you could see in just weeks after President Trump imposes drastic new tariffs on cars and car parts made in other countries.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, a federal judge is ordering the Trump administration to preserve the messages from the now infamous group chat where cabinet officials discussed military strikes in Yemen, some of them before they actually happened. Every single government agency with members who are part of this chat has until Monday to explain how the messages will be preserved.

Now, this is all related to a lawsuit that alleges federal records laws were violated. I want to bring in two former federal prosecutors, Shan Wu and Elliot Williams. Elliot, can we just step back for a second? Explain what this is actually all about.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. And a lot of people might think, well, these are all out in public. Why does it matter that these things are even being preserved in the first case? Well, even though they appear in a magazine, they're not evidence. And they're not evidence unless they're brought into court and they come from Signal or a server somewhere. So, these have to be preserved as a matter of law.

The people who are suing here are organizations that often seek government information trying to get the government to preserve their records better. That's really what's get sort of at the heart of this all.

MATTINGLY: But, I mean, for somebody who says, well, that sounds like a paperwork thing, why is it important?

SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I mean, in a lot of ways, to Elliot's point, this lawsuit is really interesting. It actually goes to the heart of the question of what the Trump administration does to avoid transparency because it's not being treated like a normal federal communication, which is preserved. They have an opportunity, but for this happenstance of a reporter being involved doing things in a black box, there's no records of it.

So, in a sense, the public may ask, you know, why is it important? We kind of know what's in there.

MATTINGLY: Yes.

WU: But what it really goes to is all the stuff that you can do without anyone having accountability or preserving. It's not just for history. It's for seeing what's going to happen here. And that's really why it's such an important lawsuit.

WILLIAMS: And there's one sentence that neither of the two of us said, that's really the important one. The law requires that government records be preserved, full stop. And if these are government records and they appear to be, they're not being preserved, they might vanish in a week.

MATTINGLY: So, what happens? I mean, I think there's been some sense that they've been able to find partial versions of it, but not full. Obviously, you could see that it was set to disappear after one week. What happens if they can't turn over the full record?

WILLIAMS: Well, if they can't turn over the full records and they haven't behaved in a nefarious manner, they will indicate to the court, look, we did our best, made a good faith effort to try to find these records, but could not locate them.

Now, usually, you can find the records somehow from a server, from a phone, from somewhere else. It gets trickier with Signal, which is an encrypted app. But it's really about the good faith and the efforts of the people who are in possession of the records. They have to certify that they did everything they could to make them available.

WU: Yes. And also going forward is really important too. Because one of the requests is to say that the Signal chat is a government record, and that means, going forward, the administration can't keep relying on these, you know, under the table kind of communication strategies.

[18:20:00]

MATTINGLY: Is it not nefarious to begin with setting it to disappearing messages after one week?

WILLIAMS: I wouldn't -- I mean, yes.

MATTINGLY: I'm being serious, like that seems like a --

WILLIAMS: Yes and no. I mean, it's -- they were trying to preserve the secrecy of what was sensitive information. Now, there are ways to do that and they have secure channels by which to do so. They're going to have some explaining to do to the court, and that's exactly what the lawsuit's about.

MATTINGLY: Shen the judge here had some jokes today based on what had been a very, very intense back and forth that the administration on an immigration related case. There have been already people saying there's no way this same judge could get two high-profile cases. Is this a conspiracy?

WU: Those people who say that don't play roulette, obviously. I mean, it's luck of the draw on their part. And so I don't think there's any conspiracy, whatsoever. There are cases that are considered related. You could go to the same judge. This was not done in this case. So, that's just a random thing and just sort of bad luck for the Trump administration. That's the same judge, because he was a great judge. I used to work with him when we were prosecutors. He's unflappable, obviously has a bit of a sense of humor. He used to prosecute murder cases, so pressure is nothing new to him.

MATTINGLY: To that point, though, you know, talk about the kind of universe of the court that we're talking about here, why the same judge would get two different cases that are very high-profile. It's in part because of what the administration has done up to this point, in general.

WILLIAMS: Yes. There are 14 sitting judges in the District of Columbia and how many dozen high-profile pieces of litigation involving the Trump administration. It does not strain credulity to find that the same judge might get two very high-profile cases.

Now, these happen to come on successive days, but I'm not shocked by this at all. It is a random wheel. It happens all the time across the United States of America, and it happened to the District of Columbia right here.

MATTINGLY: Before I let you guys go, the idea of, you know, Justice Departments usually don't mess around with judges because there's a long game here, right, and there's also an appeals process here. The fights that they've had in particular with Judge Boasberg, will those have second, third order effects, as they have other cases move through? Are other judges watching that and saying like, I don't really like that much, I'm going to do something to crack that (ph)?

WU: I think that the other judges are simply being put on notice that this is going to be the kind of rough kind of game that's played. I don't think it'll affect any of these judges in terms of the merits of the cases.

WILLIAMS: No. But a judge who is insulted by a litigant has far less incentive to give judgment calls in their favor. No. If they're mocking him and publicly blasting him, if there's a close call that's still within the bounds of the law, why should he rule in their favor?

WU: Yes. And it hurts the credibility of the lawyer who's making all these kind of nonsense arguments or the client saying something totally different, so it hurts them.

MATTINGLY: Yes, no, I assume there was a reason why for the most part, this doesn't happen before now, but it certainly is. Guys, it was a great conversation, thanks for coming in.

Well, experts are warning that President Trump's new auto tariffs will drive up the cost of cars in the U.S. but how soon and by how much? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Money Lead, new global backlash against President Trump's newly announced 25 percent tariffs on foreign cars and parts. Canada's prime minister called the tariffs a, quote, direct attack and promised to retaliate. Japan's prime minister says he'll consider, quote, all options. And both Germany and France are urging the European Union to respond.

While world leaders weigh their options, most experts agree on this, Americans should expect car prices to go up.

CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich is following all of this. Vanessa, let's talk numbers to start here. Just how much of an increase do economists think we're talking about here?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Well first, the car manufacturers are going to feel these increases in prices, and then that's going to translate all the way down to the consumer.

If you look at the cost to produce a vehicle with a 25 percent tariff, economists estimate that this will cost about $3,500 to $12,000 more per vehicle. And then when we talk about the consumer, a lot of economists are suggesting that it could cost upwards of $5,000 to $15,000 more per vehicle. But let's take the White House's numbers on this.

According to their fact sheet, a $40,000 vehicle made in America would cost $5,000 more if that company uses foreign parts. And that is important because 10.2 million cars produced here in the United States in 2024, 50 percent of the parts in that those cars were foreign parts, so that is getting taxed.

But, ultimately, the White House is sticking by what they're saying. We heard from Trade Adviser Peter Navarro just a short time to go, who doubled down on these tariffs and said ultimately they would be good for the consumer. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER NAVARRO, TRUMP SENIOR COUNSELOR FOR TRADE AND MANUFACTURING: The 25 percent tariff is going to be absorbed in a lot of different ways, and we're going to race to get more production here. And on net, consumers are going to be better off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YURKEVICH: And, Phil, ultimately it is up to the car companies if they want to absorb some of these costs and if they want to stand up more production here in the U.S.

MATTINGLY: You know, Vanessa, when it comes to production, White House officials have said, look, there is manufacturing capacity domestically that could be utilized here. Is that true?

YURKEVICH: Yes. So, I heard from one senior executive at a car maker, and they said that they personally, in their company, do not have capacity. I've spoken to rank and file members who have said some of their plants have capacity, some don't.

However, the industry as a whole, yes, it does have capacity. According to the St. Louis fed, the auto industry here in the U.S. is operating at about 65 percent capacity.

[18:30:00]

That is not that high. So, as an industry it certainly exists. However, for those car companies that don't have extra capacity, they will have to build new plants that costs money. And, Phil, that is a lot of time. That's not going to happen in a couple weeks, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Yes, really a critical point. Vanessa Yurkevich, as always, my friend, thanks so much.

YURKEVICH: Thanks.

MATTINGLY: Well, joining me now is Jeff Schuster. He's the president of America's Operations and Global Vehicle Forecast for LMC Automotive. Jeff, thanks so much for joining us.

I just want to start the idea that you hear from White House officials saying, look, car companies can't afford to lose this market. They can't afford from a competitive reason to be able to raise prices and actually maintain market share in the U.S. and therefore they will eat any cost increases. Do you think there's truth to that?

JEFF SCHUSTER, PRESIDENT, LMC AUTOMOTIVE: You know, I think there's a chance they will absorb some of the cost increase we're anticipating, depending on the automaker, between 50 and 75 percent of that cost is going to get passed on to the consumer one way or another.

Now, the way they can initially eat it is by essentially cutting incentives so that, in effect, does raise the price to consumers, but it's not as visible as it might be to changing the sticker price.

MATTINGLY: In terms of when consumers may see an effect here, you know, it takes time, I think, to filter through, particularly given supply chains. How long do you think it'll take before you know you're driving by a lot and you can see there's a tangible difference?

SCHUSTER: Yes. And I think that's also going to vary. I think, on average we're anticipating somewhere in the 30 to 60-day range. There's about a 60-day supply of vehicles out there right now. So, we think it'll probably take a little bit of time to work through that. But consumers have gotten quite savvy and are likely to rush out there if they're really looking for a vehicle during this time to try to get ahead of it.

MATTINGLY: For the savvy consumer, who's looking for some intel here, what types of cars will be -- do you expect at least will be impacted most?

SCHUSTER: Yes. You know, when we look at it, it really is across the full spectrum. Unfortunately, for those that are first time car buyers or entry car segment buyers, the more affordable vehicles, those tend to be the ones that are imported right now, so your smaller cars, some of your smaller crossover SUVs. But it really is a full spectrum when you're looking at vehicles that are imported from Canada and Mexico as well. It accounts for nearly 50 percent of the vehicles sold in the U.S.

It was interesting, the UAW, I was actually anxiously awaiting what they were going to say on this yesterday. They say it is a victory for auto workers. In a statement, they say, quote, with these tariffs, thousands of good paying blue collar auto jobs could be brought back to working class communities across the United States within a matter of months.

Timeline is a really, really hard question to answer to pin down here in terms of moving manufacturing back, in terms of how this would actually have a direct effect on employment. Do you think a matter of months is a realistic timeline?

SCHUSTER: I think there could be some small moves, really have a significant impact on jobs. But I think we could see some capacity shifting into the U.S. The reality is, though, about half of the vehicles that are built in the U.S. are only built in the U.S. right now, I should say, that are sold in the U.S. are only built in the U.S So, you've got another half of the vehicles that are built within the region that would need to come into the U.S. And that can be a challenge. I think when you're looking at commonized platforms, and we're getting a little technical here, but it's not just easy enough to move a vehicle into a plant and call it good. There's a significant investment in doing so.

MATTINGLY: Yes, multiple routes across multiple countries in a lengthy process, shifting that or re-shoring that in its entirety, not exactly a snap of the finger type of thing.

Jeff Schuster, I really appreciate your time and expertise. Thanks so much.

SCHUSTER: Thanks for having me, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Well, the major announcement today that 10,000 people are being laid off from federal health agencies. Could this have an impact on your local hospitals? What about your doctor's office? We're going to dig in. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

MATTINGLY: Now to our Health Lead. And a dramatic announcement today from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., says the agency will cut 10,000 jobs as part of a major overhaul. Now, that is on top of the 10,000 who already voluntarily resigned. HHS says these jobs will include cuts to the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC, the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Dr. Megan Ranney joins me now. And, Doctor, I think the difficulty, I think, in this moment, given the scale certainly, but also in terms of the overhaul of U.S. health agencies, is to try and explain what this means, what impact this would have. Do we have a sense of that at this early stage?

DR. MEGAN RANNEY, EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN: It's too early to know for sure what the impact is going to be. There was not a lot of transparency either in the video that RFK put out or in the fact sheet. But I can predict a few things. The first is the stated agenda is to make our food, our pharmaceuticals, and all of America healthier. It's difficult to imagine how that will happen with an almost 20 percent cut in the Food and Drug Administration's workforce.

They say that no one who has regulatory capacity is going to be cut, but I have trouble thinking and imagining how we are going to get drugs through to approval, how we are going to ensure the safety of infant formula, how we're going to check on the nutritional content of food if we don't have a workforce there. So, that's part one.

Part two is the cuts to the CDC and NIH put our ability to track emerging epidemics at risk, both infectious and non-infectious, so obesity and COVID intersected. We need to be able to look at both of those. If we don't have scientists there, it's going to make it tougher for us to address whatever's coming down the line, whether it's bird flu or measles.

[18:40:05]

And then the third and biggest thing that I'm worried about, Phil, is the ripple effect on state and local health departments. This 10,000- person cut is on top of over $12 billion in cuts from CDC to state and local health departments yesterday.

Most people don't understand that the federal workforce doesn't all sit in D.C. and Atlanta, fans out across the country. It supports doctors and hospitals and superintendents and keeping communities healthy, and I'm deeply worried about how that ripple effect is going to play out a as we get more details about what these cuts are.

MATTINGLY: You know, what's interesting is you talk to government officials, you talk to folks from HHS or formerly of HHS, they acknowledge, look, there are places, there are things we could do to make this more efficient. There are divisions we could combine or modernize or, you know, you used the term you would like, this isn't it. What would be the way to do that, in your view?

RANNEY: It is exactly it. This is the hatchet rather than the scalpel being taken to this problem. You know, Kennedy's been in this job for three weeks. It's a 90,000-person agency. In an ideal world, he would meet with folks, learn what their jobs are, and then think strategically about how to reorganize, how to prioritize the things that matter and what can be pushed off to state and local health departments or to communities versus what needs to be kept centrally.

This sudden cutting that seems almost haphazard, it is difficult to imagine that we're not going to lose key services and, right, in fact, we've already seen that where people were fired from the FDA and then rehired. I wish that he'd taken a little more time to assess what he was walking into before cutting large swaths of the agencies.

MATTINGLY: The mission that the secretary laid out or talked about, which tracks with what he campaigned on, it tracks with what he talked about, and has a lot of fans talking about, I should say, in the kind of MAHA (ph) space, we saw it at his confirmation hearing, this idea of America's epidemic of chronic illness -- in the epidemic with chronic illness, focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins, you kind of pointed at this. What exists now with these cuts that can actually deliver on that? Is that supposed to be what HHS is doing?

RANNEY: That is what -- I mean that is the basis of public health, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Yes.

RANNEY: Right? The whole goal behind public health is that we help people be healthy, help them not get sick, and then if they do get sick, help them get healthier faster. There are lots of programs across the country that are trying to get healthy food into the hands of pregnant moms and kids, programs that are working to stop fentanyl overdoses, crisis hotline to reduce suicide, ongoing science to examine the effect of forever chemicals on the development of our children and on fertility. Those are the things that are at risk when there are these sudden kind of ham-handed cuts. And I do, again, worry about that mismatch between the agenda and the actions.

MATTINGLY: Yes, the concentric circles of goals and agendas of the new secretary and things that already exist in some form or fashion, maybe just need to be connected or threaded together. It'll be interesting to see the recognition of that in the weeks and months ahead.

Dr. Megan Ranney, thanks so much.

RANNEY: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, migrants from all over the world are stuck in limbo after showing up at the U.S. border to claim asylum, but instead they're flown to South America where CNN traveled to find out why they wanted to come to the U.S. and what comes next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:47:43]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: In our world lead, more than 100 migrants expelled from the U.S. are now essentially stuck in a country they know nothing about, Panama.

CNN's Omar Jimenez went there to speak with some of them who feel there's no clear path forward.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, we're on our way to a shelter right now here in Panama City, Panama, where migrants are caught in this sort of Trump created limbo where they've been deported from the United States. But they also can't go home.

"AMBO", MIGRANT FROM CAMEROON: I left Cameroon due to political issues. It is either I will be sentenced dead or I will spend the rest of my life in prison.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): Life for Ambo, as she asked to be called, is now this shelter. She's among the dozens of migrants here from places like Afghanistan, Russia, China and more.

These are all people who say they can't go home because they fear either persecution or potentially being killed.

Ambo didn't want her face identified on camera. She says she arrived at the U.S. Mexico border on January 23rd, hoping to make a case for asylum. The U.S. eventually put her on a plane, and she thought she was being transferred to another American immigration facility until they landed in Panama.

"AMBO": We're asking them. Why are they bringing us to Panama? Why are we in Panama? JIMENEZ: It was actually part of the Trump administration's mass deportation plan, which it has pressured Latin American countries like Panama to help with. The Panamanian government then took these migrants to a hotel in Panama City, guarded by tight security, the migrants say, with little to no access to outside communication.

"AMBO": Maybe the immigration from the U.S. has come to Panama to listen to our stories. Why -- we went there. Maybe they work.

JIMENEZ: So, you still had hope that someone from the United States would come and fix the situation?

"AMBO": Yeah.

JIMENEZ: Her optimism was shattered.

"AMBO": It shouldn't just, like, abandon us like that without telling us what we have done wrong. It becomes very, very difficult and confusing to us. I've left my children back home.

JIMENEZ: Others don't have anything at home to go back to.

Why can't you go back to Ethiopia?

"SALAM", MIGRANT FROM ETHIOPIA: That is political. I cannot go back. I don't have family. They die already, our family or my family?

[18:50:00]

JIMENEZ: Salam, as she wanted to be called, is from Ethiopia. She also didn't want her face on camera.

Is this where you all sleep? In this room?

"SALAM": Yeah. Everyone is in the bus station.

JIMENEZ: It's one of multiple places in Panama where these migrants are trying to navigate life in a country they've never known.

ARTEMIS GHASEMZADEH, MIGRANT FROM IRAN: We are lost here.

JIMENEZ: Artemis Ghasemzadeh fled Iran.

GHASEMZADEH: I changed my religion in Iran. And the punishment of that is maybe a long prison. Or at the end is death.

JIMENEZ: She was seen in this February photo from "The New York Times" with the words help us written on the hotel window where these migrants were first taken.

They were then moved to a location hours outside the city. Over 100 of the migrants that were sent here to Panama City were then taken to a remote jungle camp, away from the resources of Panama City, but also, for the most part, away from effective means of communication.

"SALAM": The food was really disgusting. The bathroom was really dirty. No -- no privacy. No door.

The water is even -- you will take shower. It's itchy. I can't see my --

JIMENEZ: Wow.

"SALAM": All my body is like this.

JIMENEZ: Through every step along the way, attorneys for these migrants argue their rights were violated.

SILVIA SERNA ROMAN, REGIONAL LITIGATOR FOR MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA: When they got to America, and when they got to Panama, they were never allowed to speak to an official that wanted necessarily to hear their story and their circumstance. And so even though they all claim to be asylum seekers, they have never had the right to be heard.

JIMENEZ: In early March, the government released the over 100 migrants from the remote jungle camp, but gave them temporary permits to find another place to go or risk deportation from Panama.

ROMAN: They might be, like involuntarily be taken back to their countries. And that's our concern.

JIMENEZ: If you went back to your country, do you think you would be killed?

"SALAM": Yeah.

GHASEMZADEH: If I come back to my country, my government kill me.

JIMENEZ: Ambo still dreams of America, but has no idea how this nightmare will end.

"AMBO": I don't think I can stay in Panama. But now the point is, where am I going to go to?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JIMENEZ (on camera): Now, the Panamanian government has denied any wrongdoing throughout this saga. But those temporary permits they issued were for a minimum of 30 days, which, by the way, is coming up soon, in early April, with a maximum of 90 days.

But I asked a government official in the security minister's office. Okay. After 90 days, could they forcibly be returned to their countries? And they didn't outright say no. They said, after the 90 days, each case will be looked at on an individual basis.

And we also reached out to U.S. border officials on the nature of how they were expelled from the United States. But we haven't gotten a response just yet.

MATTINGLY: Omar Jimenez, great reporting. Thanks so much.

JIMENEZ: Of course. MATTINGLY: Well, it's a scandal that rocked the sports world. Now, Jake Tapper is digging in to Lance Armstrong's doping admissions and the rise and fall of a man who inspired millions by overcoming health struggles to win championships.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:57:22]

MATTINGLY: In our sports lead, a brand new episode of "UNITED STATES OF SCANDAL" takes a look at a scandal that rocked the cycling world when Lance Armstrong admitted to using performance enhancing drugs.

CNN sports anchor Coy Wire is here.

And, Coy, record seven Tour de France wins, Olympic medalist. Obviously, his personal story.

How big of a deal was this?

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Larger than life. Lance Armstrong, maybe even superhuman. He beat stage four cancer, only to then become one of the most dominant athletes the world has ever seen. We're talking rock star status, Phil.

Fans around the world rubbing shoulders with Hollywood A-listers. His net worth skyrocketing. It was something that the sports world just wasn't ready for.

And here is a sneak peek at this incredible journey as told by our Jake Tapper.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, "UNITED STATES OF SCANDAL": During his winning streak, though some insiders may have known, Lance Armstrong was reliant on performance-enhancing drugs.

To most of the world, he was simply one of the greatest athletes of all time. And suddenly, Lance was moving in a-list circles and even dating superstar Sheryl Crow.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was on a whole different level as a celebrity, but also financially and how much he was paid, probably the best cyclist at the time were making maybe $1 million a year. I was making, I think, $60,000 or something, and he was probably making tens of millions of dollars or somewhere in that neighborhood.

TAPPER: Mainly from sponsorships.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.

TAPPER: Nike or whatever.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. He had big corporate sponsors. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From trek bikes to Nike shoes to Nike cycling gear. RadioShack had sponsored him at one point. So, he was just a juggernaut. And so, once the story took off, it was almost too big to fail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WIRE: So how was it, Phil, that this went on for so long and nothing ever came out until years later? Phil, he had former teammates who eventually admitted to doping as well, said that Armstrong encouraged them to do it. And, Phil, you'd have to imagine there was probably this sort of moral juxtaposition. With the bad came a lot of good. Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation, which he created back in 1997 after beating cancer, touched millions of lives of cancer patients, survivors, raising millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars for cancer-related causes and research.

Those close to him, Phil, were likely asking themselves, who am I to rat out this larger than life legend? We'll have the whole roller coaster story right here on CNN this weekend.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, don't miss it. The inherent conflict there.

Coy Wire, great reporting as always, my friend.

The new episode of "UNITED STATES OF SCANDAL" with Jake Tapper airs this Sunday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern here on CNN.

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

Most importantly, "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.