Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Sen. John Kennedy, (R-LA), Is Interviewed About Senate Holds Initial Vote On Iran War Powers Resolution; Trump Declares Opening Days Of War With Iran A Major Success; Iranian Officials: 100 Plus Dead In Strike On Girls School; Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Is Interviewed About GOP Senator Calls Noem's Leadership Of DHS "A Disaster"; Israeli Strike Targeting Hezbollah Hits Hotel In Lebanon. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired March 04, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right. Thanks to my panel. Jim, it's lovely to have you through The Arena.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Nice to be here.

HUNT: Thank you for being here. Jake Tapper is standing by for "The Lead." Hi, Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Hey, Kasie. How you doing? We'll see you in "The Arena" tomorrow.

HUNT: See you tomorrow.

[17:00:29]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN BREAKING news.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. We're going to start with breaking news in our world lead. The Joint Chiefs of Staff saying that the U.S. will start, quote, "striking progressively" deeper into Iranian territory, and it appears that Congress will not stand in the way. Right now the U.S. Senate is taking an initial vote on the War Powers Resolution.

It is right now on track to fail. As you may know, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 in response to the Vietnam War. It would allow any one member of the House or the Senate to force a vote to withdraw U.S. forces from a conflict or to block strikes. Presidents for years have held that that War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

When it comes to the U.S. conflict in Iran, this legislation always faced long odds because even if it passed both chambers of Congress, there is not enough support without question to override a presidential veto. And to be perfectly frank, many members of Congress don't like voting on such matters because such votes force them to take a position at a specific moment in time that they can never erase and never erase. Ask former Senator Hillary Clinton how she feels about her Iraq authorization vote.

So the Trump administration is carrying on with this military campaign while the timeline and desired outcome remain unclear as of now. The U.S. Secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, said earlier today it's, quote, "very early in its military operations against Tehran, the Pentagon." And today, White House press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked what success looks like in Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've hit all of these targets. What can Americans expect the goal to be moving forward now that the U.S. has accomplished all of this? What is victory given we've even taken out Iran's supreme leader? That was an explicit goal with this --

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Again, victory will be determined by the commander in chief once the goals and the objectives that we have repeatedly laid out are fully realized.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Leavitt was also pressed on the fact that the U.S. did not seem to have a plan to safely evacuate all of the American citizens in the 14 Middle Eastern countries notified by the State Department until yesterday, day three of the war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: There was many signs put out by the State Department and I wish that everyone in this room would report on them. The secretary of State issued Level 4 travel advisories dating back to January for many of the -- these countries in the region.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The White House seeming to blame the news media, not the most powerful government on earth, for leaving its citizens stranded in a war zone. In any case, the only countries that had the highest travel advisory before the war began were Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. Those are clearly not the only countries that now find themselves on the wrong end of Iranian missiles. Plus, a travel advisory ahead of a potential attack is not the same thing as having a plan ready to get thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans out after the attack. But be that as it may, let's get right to CNN's Manu Raju on Capitol Hill.

Manu, ahead of the end of the War Powers Resolution vote, you have been talking to many lawmakers about why they're supporting the military action in Iran. What are they saying?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Republicans in particular, because they have the votes. If they wanted to vote to authorize this military action or vote for this War Powers Resolution, they could do that. But we're seeing Republican after Republican line up against it, including in this measure that is now on the Senate floor and is on track to fail. The vote right now 47 to 52 would require a simple majority for approval and just two members have broken ranks with their respective parties, Rand Paul of Kentucky voting with Democrats. He frequently breaks on foreign policy issues. John Fetterman, he's voting with Republicans.

He's been more hawkish on some foreign policy issues. But a Republican after Republican are telling me they don't need to vote for this War Powers Resolution, which would require Congress, the president, to get consent from Congress to continue with the military operations of Iran or a separate authorization for use of military force, what George W. Bush asked for in the Iraq war and Afghanistan war. They say this situation is different.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Why shouldn't Congress have to vote to authorize it?

REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): I just don't think that's within constitutional parameters.

RAJU: Why not have Congress with that?

SEN. TIM SHEEHY (R-MT): This is a totally different. Both of those operations were in response in the wake of 9/11. There were new operations. We've been in consistent conflict with Iran for 46 years.

RAJU: But in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were AUFs, authorizing the use of force.

REP. BRIAN MAST (R-FL): There was an entirely different set of mission that I think has absolutely no relevance in looking at this operation.

RAJU: Why not just vote to authorize this war?

[17:05:00]

REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): Well, I think the president has the authority.

RAJU: Would you consider it a war.

FLOOD: It's a significant military operation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And of course, the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has referred to this as a war, as President Trump has himself. And the Congress, as you know, Jake, under the Constitution, has the explicit authority to declare war. But very clearly here, Republicans don't see the need of trying to rein in President Trump in any which way, even though there is still many, many questions about how long this will go on, for what additional resources will be needed, and if it continues to drag on, will the president be forced to come back to Capitol Hill. But one thing we -- the lawmakers, are bracing for, Jake, is an additional funding package that could be tens of billions of dollars to sustain this military effort in Iran. The question is, how much will that be? Will they get enough support? Can it pass the United States Senate? All questions for the White House, as Republicans right now are in line with the president. Jake.

TAPPER: All right, Manu Raju on Capitol Hill, thanks so much.

Joining us in studio to discuss Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana. We should note he's got a book out. It's titled "How to Test Negative for Stupid and Why Washington Never Will." Holding it up right here. All right.

Nice. Washington never -- will always test positive for stupid is what you're saying.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Yes.

TAPPER: Let me ask you about these strikes.

KENNEDY: Yes.

TAPPER: Is this a war?

KENNEDY: I'm not sure it matters what you call it.

TAPPER: Well, the Constitution says only Congress --

KENNEDY: I don't -- I'm not adverse. There seems to be --

TAPPER: Yes.

KENNEDY: -- some effort among our friends in the media to get people to admit there's war. I'm sure many people are referring to it as a war. That's not the issue. The issue is at what point does a president need to seek authority from Congress?

TAPPER: Yes.

KENNEDY: And frankly, you can teach that round or flat. The answer to it is light pornography. It's undefined. You know it when you see it. This president, unlike other presidents, says, I don't need the authority.

Other presidents wanted the authority to have someone behind them in terms of sharing the responsibility. If a senator or House member is upset and thinks the president has crossed the line, he or she has a number of options. You can, first of all, not vote to fund the war. You can file an authorization. You can file what Tim Kaine just did, a resolution.

You can file suit. To my knowledge, the last six, seven presidents have initiated actions including, but not limited to, bombing of our adversaries and other countries. Some have sought authority, some haven't.

TAPPER: I don't think we've had a declaration of war vote Since World War II. KENNEDY: That's probably the case.

TAPPER: And we've obviously had wars in between Korea and Vietnam, most notably. I guess the question is it's not really a semantic one in terms of whether or not it's a war. It's that, as you know, Article 1 of the Constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war. We're spending billions of dollars and Americans are dying and civilians are dying, Iranian, Israeli, others, why shouldn't Congress have --

KENNEDY: Well --

TAPPER: -- some skin in the game in terms of we voted for.

KENNEDY: -- it's a fair question. The Constitution doesn't skip, doesn't go from Article 1 and skip Article 2 and go to Article 3.

TAPPER: I got it. Yes.

KENNEDY: Well, no. Article 2 also says the president is commander in chief. And I believe if you study the history of the Constitution, that our founders left it intentionally and vague. Intentionally vague. Article 1 gives Congress the responsibility to declare war.

Doesn't say make war. The commander in chief makes war. Now, where do you draw the line? Different presidents have drawn it in different places. And it is up to the United States Congress to say we don't agree with where you've drawn the line and we're going to weigh in. And this Congress can do this at any point in time.

TAPPER: How concerned are you that the next leader of Iran, and they're talking right now about maybe the son of the ayatollah is going to take over, is going to be as bad, if not worse, than the former leader of Iran?

KENNEDY: Well, of course, it's always a worry. Look, if we do our job, it's not going to matter. What does victory look like to me? I can tell you, to me, it looks like the initial -- the new efforts after our June bombing to restart the nuclear warhead program will be stopped in its tracks. Number two, Iran was building or was adding anywhere from 200 to 600 missiles a month.

We're making them use all those missiles. Number three, we're going to take out their missile manufacturing ability. Number four, we're going to take out their launchers. Number five, they're going to desecrate and decimate their navy.

[17:10:10]

The goal here is to leave the political leadership of Iran unable to defend itself, unable to hold the Middle East hostage, unable to hold the rest of the world hostage while it pursues a nuclear weapon. It is clear to me that the current political leadership is never going to give up its effort to obtain a nuclear weapon. And if they get one, they are religious zealots. If they -- I mean, they're like Jack Nicholson and "The Shining." I'm sorry, they're stone cold crazy. TAPPER: So --

KENNEDY: And they will use a weapon if they get it.

TAPPER: The State Department has updated the message on the assistance call line for the Americans who are stuck in the Middle East.

KENNEDY: Yes.

TAPPER: Fourteen countries in the Middle East trying to get out saying the U.S. is committed to helping American citizens who want to leave the region. But before that, update, this is what it sounds like. Take a listen.

KENNEDY: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you are calling about the crisis in the Middle East, please press one. If not, press two. Please do not rely on the U.S. government for assisted departure or evacuation at this time. There are currently no United States evacuation points. Please continue to check the embassy's website for updated information in the event of ongoing military action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So there doesn't seem to be any sort of plan for the thousands.

KENNEDY: Well, I haven't heard that recording, but it's not accurate. We asked Senator Rubio about this yesterday. They had a plan and have a plan to evacuate people. They started it, implement -- started implementing it Saturday afternoon. Their problem is that a lot of people had not contacted the State Department, say, here I am.

Here's a cell phone. Send the plane to get me. Some members, I don't want to overstate this of our embassy, they don't want to leave. They want to stay and do their job. I think Marco, don't hold me to this, said that they have 1,500, 2,000 names.

They're encouraging people to send their names. They're sending planes. Now sometimes people are only given an hour's notice to get on the plane. Some of the planes have to be turned back because of danger. They're also pursuing routes by land right now.

And it sounded -- I mean, I don't know about this recording, but it sounds to me like the State Department anticipated this.

TAPPER: All right, we'll see. Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana. Once again, the book from the senator, "How to Test Negative for Stupid and Why Washington Never Will." Thanks so much for being here. Really appreciate it.

KENNEDY: Thanks, Jake. Always. TAPPER: Breaking news this hour -- breaking news this hour, the Israeli military says it launched a new wave of strikes against Iran's capital of Tehran. Ahead, we're going to take a look at some of the weapons that Iran might use to retaliate, specifically drones that the U.S. managed to clone and also use in this war. And more breaking news from Capitol Hill. The House Oversight Committee led by Republicans, of course, voting to subpoena the attorney general Pam Bondi to force her to testify about her role in the release of the Epstein files. It's a busy afternoon.

We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:17:11]

TAPPER: We're back with our world lead and a closer look at weapons of war. That's an Iranian drone you're looking at taking out a satellite facility in Bahrain this past weekend. One of Iran's early retaliatory strikes. The drone used is Shahid (ph) drone. And it turns out the U.S. has a replica.

In fact, this war with Iran is the first time the U.S. has deployed its version of this drone in combat. Let's bring in CNN's Tom Foreman who's in the virtual room.

Tom, I'm not sure if it's Shahid or Shahed but show us what makes this drone so unique.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Shahid in English, Shahed in Arabic. Let's bring one in because that's the best way to look at it. A model of this Lucas drone, which is the U.S. copy of this. This is life size, about 10 feet long, eight foot wingspan. It has a propeller drive back there, so it doesn't have the big heat signature of a rocket engine.

It weighs about 180 pounds and it carries about a 40 pound explosive head up here. And you are correct. This is a clone of the Iranian Shahed-136 Kamikaze drone, which the Iranians have been working on for years. U.S. forces got a hold of one of these, took it to U.S. engineers and said, make us one, but make it better. And that's why we now have very similar drones, cousin drones, fighting each other in this combat.

Why do the Iraqis -- the Iranians, excuse me, like the Shahed so much? They like the Shahed because unlike those big missiles the senator was talking about a while ago, you do not have to fire this from a big launching system which sits out there just inviting to be attacked. It can be moved out quickly, fired from the back of a truck, from a field, from a boat, from almost anywhere, because they don't even weigh that much. Another reason they like them is because you don't need a giant missile production facility which can be tracked and destroyed. These can be produced in clandestine small operations all over the country.

Hard to find, hard to wipe out. Jake. TAPPER: Tom, presumably that makes these weapons much less expensive to produce, as you suggested.

FOREMAN: Monumentally less. You know, something like a Tomahawk or a cruise missile, you're going to talk about at least a million dollars, probably several million dollars. This is about $20,000. So when you start looking at the maps of where strikes have been occurring so far, if you look at those that are from drones, these are missiles and drones here, where a drone strikes, not one has been fired, but a whole swarm has been sent there. That's how the Iranians use these.

And when that swarm comes in, those defense systems we talk about so much, even if they knock out 90 percent, which they often do, only 10 percent have to get through to produce this kind of destruction out there. That's the way, Jake, that they are taking this small weapon and making a big impact, even as the U.S. is trying to turn it right back against them. Jake.

[17:20:03]

TAPPER: All right, Tom Foreman, thanks so much. We're going to talk more about weapons of war and the U.S. strategy with a retired general who used to call the shots in Afghanistan and Iraq. We're going to talk to General David Petraeus about what he makes of U.S. military operations so far. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: New video today on our world lead. You're looking right now at the U.S. taking out an Iranian warship. Secretary of Defense Hegseth said today that a U.S. submarine sank it with a torpedo, something not done to an enemy ship since World War II. I mean, what an image that is. The secretary also said the U.S. is dominating in its war on Iran, but there is no finish line in sight

[17:25:00]

Let's get some perspective. Retired General David Petraeus is with me. In addition to leading the CIA, he led U.S. Central Command and also was head chief in Afghanistan and Iraq. What -- are you clear on what the military goal is right now and how achievable is it in how many weeks or months?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS (RET.), FORMER CENTCOM COMMANDER: I think -- I think it is pretty clear actually. Again, it's missile program destroy the whole -- including the construction of the manufacturing facilities, but certainly the launchers and the missiles. Same with the drone program. Navy put it on the bottom of the Gulf War all the way out off the coast of India. Also, any remnants of the nuclear program.

And of course, the IAEA said that there may be some 60 percent enriched uranium underneath the rubble in Isfahan pile drive the massive ordinance penetrators down and make sure that doesn't survive.

TAPPER: All achievable? PETRAEUS: All achievable. Very much so.

TAPPER: And how long do you -- how long would it take?

PETRAEUS: Well, again, you're going to have to -- it depends what's the success against each of the targets, what's the bomb damage assessment, all the rest of that. But I think it is certainly several weeks it is achievable. Now, we're not done yet, though, because you also have to go after the Revolutionary Guards Corps. They're going after every single headquarters. If you look at the Institute for the Study of War, which is literally mapped out the infrastructure in Tehran and then in the provinces and so forth, they're really putting X's through this as it's a manhunt.

And of course, the manhunt has been highly successful as well. Many, many dozens of the senior leaders have been taken out. So that is all achievable. Now that does not achieve regime change. And I think this is where perhaps some of the confusion has been.

I don't think the military by any means has been given a mission to change the regime. It's been given the mission to set conditions where other forces inside the country, if they rise up, find organization, charismatic leaders, guns, and lots of guys can actually carry that out.

TAPPER: And it does seem as though President Trump has suggested that regime change would be a nice fringe benefit, but that's not the goal.

PETRAEUS: I think you're right about that. He's clarified that. There was a lot of emphasis on regime change in the very first set of remarks that he made. There's been a clarification of that. Again, it's up to the Iranian people to do that.

What we're going to do is give them the opportunity. And I'm sure there's some action going on behind the scenes. There's a lot of reports about the CIA arming --

TAPPER: The Kurds.

PETRAEUS: -- Iranian Kurds.

TAPPER: Yes.

PETRAEUS: Maybe there's some other. Look at the Mossad penetration in the past has been stunning. Remember, they went into Tehran --

TAPPER: Yes.

PETRAEUS: -- and stole the nuclear records right out from underneath them. Not to mention the pinpoint elimination of all of the over a dozen nuclear scientists and so forth. So there may very well be something going on behind the scenes, even inside Iran in that regard.

TAPPER: Right now, the Senate looks like it's about to defeat the war powers vote that's going on. You're not a politician, but you served as CENTCOM director. You served as the top general in Iraq, Afghanistan, and for those wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, there was at least a vote, not a declaring war vote, but an authorizing use of force vote. And I wonder if you think as a general it's better to have that in the sense that at least then you have the feeling, or maybe I'm completely wrong about this, that there is some skin in the game that the American people are part of this.

PETRAEUS: You're right that there was an authorization to use military force after the 9/11 attacks and then a subsequent one. And that basically allowed us to go after Sunni Islamist extremists. Essentially it was Al-Qaeda and those that supported Al-Qaeda. So you can include the Taliban in that. We then applied that to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Yemen, and that became the sons and grandsons of Al- Qaeda --

TAPPER: Right.

PETRAEUS: -- ISIS. It is still being used --

TAPPER: Yes, but these are --

PETRAEUS: -- as the authority.

TAPPER: -- these authorities are completely different strategies.

PETRAEUS: This is -- this is completely different.

TAPPER: Yes. Yes.

PETRAEUS: Exactly right. This cannot be hung underneath the authority use military force. It can be hung under the president. This is why the president I think, has tried to emphasize that there was a reasonably near term threat.

I think the bigger issue here, and actually the one that I guess mollifies this a bit for me, is that I think there was a recognition that Israel was going to take action within a month or two against the missile program. They have changed their national security outlook fundamentally after 10/7. They will not allow a threat to manifest itself, not just in their neighborhood with Hezbollah, for example, but all the way over in Iran. And they're just going to keep taking it down if that's what they have to do. Same with the nuclear program. So that was going to happen.

Then you have the absolute frustration with the nuclear discussions. The president clearly feeling that were getting strung along --

TAPPER: Yes.

PETRAEUS: -- making no real progress despite that third country mention that, you know, this is coming along.

And then I think what happened is there's exquisite intelligence. We've been gathering reportedly, pattern of life on the supreme leader and other leaders for many, many months.

[17:30:00] And all of a sudden, you have an opportunity that if you take it, and you're not going to have that opportunity if you're out talking all about this and up on Capitol Hill and the rest of that.

So I think that there is some reasonable, and let's face it after all, again I've tracked this stuff for 40 years as a scholar as well, a PhD in this stuff and have taught it. It's really comes down to, what is it result? What does it look like? Do the American people at the end of the day feel that this was worth it? And if so, I think the issue of whether there was or was not sufficient consultation with Congress or immediate notification and all the rest of that, I think that's important constitutionally, and I don't want to diminish that in any way, but it's also very highly political.

You know, Senator Kennedy shows the clips of, you know, the other party doing the exact same thing --

TAPPER: Sure. Of course.

PETRAEUS: -- defending President Obama's decision in Libya as an example --

TAPPER: Yes.

PETRAEUS: -- for which there really wasn't a rock solid. That was cast as a humanitarian assistance mission.

TAPPER: General David Petraeus, we always rely and appreciate your expertise. Thanks so much.

PETRAEUS: Always good to be with you, Jake.

TAPPER: Republican Senator Thom Tillis will be here in studio next, while he's calling on the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, to resign, and he's willing to block Senate business until she responds to his requests for information. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:35:40]

TAPPER: In our World Lead, Iranian officials say that more than 100 grade school students were killed and dozens more injured in an airstrike that decimated a girls elementary school in Iran. And as the death toll rises, so too are questions over which country is responsible for that deadly strike. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked about this earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: All I can say is that we're investigating that. We, of course, never target civilian targets, but we're taking a look and investigating that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, it's several days on now. So is there any clarity on whose munition this was?

HEGSETH: We're investigating it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Joining us now is Nazanin Boniadi. She's a British-Iranian actor -- actress and activist. Naz, good to see you. What's your reaction to this tragic story?

NAZANIN BONIADI, BRITISH-IRANIAN ACTRESS AND ACTIVIST: Good to see you, Jake. Look, any innocent life lost, particularly that of children, is abhorrent. And I'm glad it's being investigated. The numbers we're getting, of course, are being reported by the Iranian Red Crescent. The head of that organization is appointed by the regime in Iran. For whatever it's worth, we have a number of 1,000 civilians killed so far by that organization, meaning that is something that is confirmed by the regime in Iran.

I am a human rights activist. I'm a peace and democracy activist. Any innocent life lost is abhorrent to me. But let's face facts, which are that just yesterday, a representative from the Islamic Republic's Foreign Affairs basically went to a school and did a press conference about attacks on schools. There's also plenty of images that we've received showing that the regime basically hold -- seeks cover at the -- at school grounds. So this is not a regime that cares about civilian lives or cares about children.

They often put children in harm's way. And let's not forget, again, that tens of thousands of protesters, including thousands of children and teenagers and young adults, were slaughtered by this regime. Some at point blank at hospitals while seeking shelter and treatment. So this is, again, no bomb shelters in Iran, no coverage for civilians, plenty of defense and coverage for the regime. This is what we're facing is a country that doesn't care about its civilians.

TAPPER: I spoke with you on Saturday following the initial strikes which killed Iran's supreme leader and dozens of others in the regime. You said it was a moment for celebration. Understandably, we're now four days into this war. How are you feeling about it now? How concerned are you that whoever comes next in the Iranian leadership will be better or worse?

BONIADI: We're all concerned about democracy, Jake. That's what we've been fighting for. And that's what the people want, they're yearning for. Again, I think many feel that they're horns in an international game of, you know, politics. And we are well aware, the Iranian people are well aware, that no country has their best interests at heart. Everybody has their own agenda.

You know, one person wrote to me yesterday and said, look, this is -- this seems to be the first time where American and foreign interests seem to be aligning with Iranian interests. But if that's actually true, then we have to make sure that democracy prevails and we don't just leave the Iranian people with some remnants of the regime, which will absolutely crack down in the most horrific way. It'll be sort of an ISIS left to deal with millions of people who clearly don't want this regime and for people who care about international law, as I do.

I'm getting plenty of messages from colleagues in entertainment and saying, I'm so sorry in this moment what's happening to your people. Thank you. But where were you a few weeks ago when tens of thousands of Iranians were being killed by their own regime? This is a regime that has been violating international law for decades.

TAPPER: Yes, no, it's a great point because a lot of people in the human rights community and activist community, progressive activist community, who are very critical of other countries, the United States, Israel, the U.K., et cetera, I haven't really heard a ton from them when it comes to Iran. And now Iran is firing missiles at Arab countries, Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, and on and on, Bahrain. And I mean, if any other country did that, I think there'd be a huge hue and outcry and huge marches in the streets. Iran does it, and there really isn't that result in the progressive community. What do you make of that?

[17:40:28]

BONIADI: Look, in 1979, progressives the world over, including in Iran, were all too willing to sacrifice women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and every other basic human right at the altar of anti-imperialism. Are we going to do the same in this moment? Are we really caring more about whose hands are on the trigger? Or are we going to care about human lives, civilian lives? This is a regime that has violated human rights, international law, has wreaked havoc on the region, domestic oppression, transnational repression, hostage diplomacy, destabilizing the region. And now it's killing fellow Muslims in neighboring countries. Where is your outrage? Where are the college campuses?

TAPPER: It's a great question. Naz Boniadi, come back again. You know we love having you. Thank you so much.

BONIADI: Thanks, Jake. Thank you.

TAPPER: Late this afternoon, a bipartisan vote in favor to subpoena U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi over the Epstein files. House Oversight Committee, run by Republicans. Why, they say, Americans still don't have the full picture.

But first, Republican Senator Thom Tillis is here, here in studio, live, after calling on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[17:46:01]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm swearing you in. You know how this works, Madam Secretary.

(END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: In our National Lead, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is back on Capitol Hill today facing bipartisan criticism for her job performance yesterday from senators, today from House lawmakers. Both often focusing on the aggressive, many would say overly aggressive, immigration crackdown in Minnesota and elsewhere. One Republican senator giving her a particularly harsh assessment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): What we've seen is a disaster under your leadership, Ms. Noem. We're beginning to get the American people to think that deporting people is wrong. It's the exact opposite. The way you're going about deporting them is wrong.

I read your book last week, and honestly, some of the parts of it impressed me, but some of it distresses me. And I'll give you a good example of one that does. The passage where you talk about killing a dog that was 14 months old. You decided to kill that dog because you had not invested the appropriate time and training. And then you have the audacity to go into a book and say it's a leadership lesson about tough choices.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: And North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis joins me now live in studio. Senator, let me ask you, why bring up the story of her killing Cricket? I mean, I thought it was a bizarre story, too. But like you think it's actually relevant.

TILLIS: I think it's relevant because if you read it, I would recommend people do it. I bought the book. I got the audio book. I read it for the committee prep. But she tries to suggest that a 14- month-old dog that's only halfway through what most people who train dogs, particularly for hunting purposes, is necessary to have that dog be reliable. So she gets angry at a dog that she puts into service long before it should and then goes and kills it in the backyard.

And before that dog is dead, she made a bad decision there. She fielded it too soon without training. Then she goes back to the farm, grabs a family goat and shoots it because it made her mad. That is not -- that's a thought process. Look, the fact that she acted precipitously on limited information, not really understanding that she had put something into a situation it was not ready for, felt a lot like some of the decision making that was done in Minneapolis.

TAPPER: Like calling Renee Good and Alex Pretti domestic terrorists.

TILLIS: Immediately jump into that. So rationalizing -- she was rationalizing killing a dog behavior because it didn't perform properly. But she was wrong. She could have had that dog perform properly. Her then rationalizing that these were terrorists was the expedient. It was the easy way out. I want leaders behind President Trump that do the hard work so that they're preserving the Republican majorities in Congress and the President's legacy. She's far from that. TAPPER: But one of the interesting things about the Pretti and Good situations is that she may immediately came out and said things that were false that we saw on video were not true.

TILLIS: No credo. And look, the reason why I ask her who Tom Holman reports to, because I knew the answer. And she said he reports to the President.

TAPPER: Right.

TILLIS: If there is no better example of a vote of no confidence is somebody who was in front when the Pretti incident occurred. And now she, who is the head of Homeland Security, is replaced by somebody for a Homeland Security mission who doesn't actually even work for the secretary of Homeland Security.

TAPPER: Yes.

TILLIS: That's a vote of no confidence, in my opinion, by the President.

TAPPER: So your Republican colleague, Senator Kennedy, was also critical. She -- he was here earlier and he was specifically critical about a multimillion dollar ad campaign that DHS ran and the secretary told him it had been a competitive bid process for the contractors who produced it. And the President had approved of the ad campaign. Democratic Senator Joe Neguse questioned her about the contractor that made these ads, Safe America Media Today. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[17:50:05]

REP. JOE NEGUSE (R-CO): Where is Safe America Media headquartered?

KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: I don't know.

NEGUSE: I don't know either, Madam Secretary. We can't find it. We can't find a website. The company is registered to a political operative in Virginia. Do you know, just by way of example, whether this company that received $143 million in taxpayer dollars, has it ever done work for the government before?

NOEM: I don't know. I can't.

NEGUSE: The answer is it has not. And do you know why we know that? Because it was incorporated eight days, eight days before this contract went out. You want the American people to believe that this is all above board?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: And we should know one of the reasons why -- one of the other reasons why people are so suspicious of this is one of the subcontractors affiliated with that contract is a company run by the husband of her former spokeswoman, Tricia McLaughlin. What do you make of all this?

TILLIS: Well, look, I mean, let's also -- I was sitting right next to Joe when he was asking the questions and I don't think people picked up on how proud she was of making any decision over $100,000 in FEMA across her desk and any decision for Homeland Security over $15 million across her desk. How can you go from saying that you scrutinize everything in excess of $15 million and in the same 10 minute period say, I didn't know any of the details of a $200 million purchase.

TAPPER: Yes.

TILLIS: This is somebody that is out of her depth and apparently only situationally interested in transactions over $15 million, except when it involves her family members or friends.

TAPPER: So one of the other things you asked for before you ran out of time yesterday, Charlotte's Web, that's the immigration enforcement operation in Charlotte, North Carolina, run by DHS. You have been waiting for more than a month for basic answers from her about this. You're a United States senator. Did she ever give you answers?

TILLIS: No, even worse than that, an hour. One of the reasons why I was angry is that an hour before after waiting a month, I was told I wasn't going to get the data. I asked for anonymized data that that recorded the incidents, the outcome, whether a person was illegally present or not, were they detained?

TAPPER: It's the oversight responsibility of the legislative branch. Yes.

TILLIS: She says that she's got a world class law enforcement organization. I could go to a small town in North Carolina and they could produce incident reports immediately for me. So she either doesn't have it or she doesn't like what it's going to say. And my suspicion is, is that she had a very low success rate.

In that hearing, she made it a point to reserve the first few rows with victims of people, family members and survivors, angel families, for people who were harmed by these people that I want deported. She was trying to say that, but for her, that wouldn't happen. I think because of her, not enough of them are being apprehended because her and Stephen Miller are more worried about hitting artificial numbers that sound big.

But when you dig below the surface, like I want to do with Charlotte's Web, I want to understand what their success rate was. And if they -- if they're successful, they should be moving heaven and earth to give me that information, the fact that they're stonewalling makes me really concerned with what I'm going to find. And if I don't get the information by March 19th, then I'm going to hold up more processes than I already am for Homeland Security.

TAPPER: Senator Thom Tillis, Republican in North Carolina. Thank you so much. Also, thank you for, you know, doing what the legislative branch is supposed to do. TILLIS: Thank you.

TAPPER: We appreciate it as Americans.

[17:53:34]

Coming up next, Israeli strikes in Lebanon, taking aim at locations suspected of holding Hezbollah terrorists. CNN spoke with the owner of a hotel bombed, who says the Israeli military picked the wrong target. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Back with the World Lead. A new video showing an Israeli helicopter firing a missile across its northern border into Lebanon. Overnight, an Israeli strike also hit a hotel in Beirut. Part of a wider campaign against Hezbollah, the terrorist Iranian proxy. Raising alarm that Lebanon could be pulled deeper into war. CNN's Matthew Chance reports for us now from Beirut, Lebanon.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is the Iran war coming to Lebanon. Israel says it's targeting the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia here in southern Beirut. The group launched revenge attacks on Israel after the killing of Iran's supreme leader last weekend.

MAGUY CHEBLI, HOTEL OWNER: Any territory outside our Lebanese army, I'm against either Hezbollah.

CHANCE (voice-over): But the owner of the small Beirut hotel wrecked in that overnight strike insists just ordinary families were staying as guests. No Iranian citizens and definitely no Hezbollah, who she blames for the spiralling violence.

CHANCE: So it was a pretty big explosion, wasn't it?

CHEBLI: It was. We had no one here. We had no any Iranians or any Hezbollah armies here. And we are not that stupid to check them in. We are not that stupid. We live here. It's our home.

CHANCE: How angry are you --

CHEBLI: I am angry of course.

CHANCE: -- with Hezbollah right now?

CHEBLI: I am angry with Hezbollah and Israel and Iran, but Hezbollah more. You know why?

CHANCE: Why?

CHEBLI: Because they are Lebanese. They should be Lebanese. They are not. They are hurting us. They are hurting our homes, our children.

CHANCE: And they are dragging this country into the Iran war.

CHEBLI: They are dragging us to war that we don't want and we're not ready.

CHANCE (voice-over): Across the Lebanese capital, tension and thick smoke is hanging over the city with Israeli airstrikes pounding Beirut's southern suburbs, some dangerously close to the international airport. Of the few still operating in the war ravaged Middle East. And as this U.S. and Israeli war with Iran escalates, Lebanon appears increasingly drawn in.

[18:00:17]

Matthew Chance, CNN, Beirut.

(END VIDEOTAPE)