Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Supreme Court Chief Justice Issues Statement; Israel Launches New Strikes in Gaza; Putin and Trump Speak. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired March 18, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:33]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: The fate of Ukraine resting on a phone call that wrapped just moments ago, President Donald Trump speaking directly with Vladimir Putin about a potential cease-fire deal. We have the latest details from sources inside the White House and at the Kremlin.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And a fragile cease-fire shattered, Israel unleashing a barrage of strikes on Hamas, the attacks reportedly killing over 400 people, the deadliest day in Gaza in over a year.

Hamas warns that this puts the hostages -- quote -- "at risk of an unknown fate."

And heading home. Butch and Suni's excellent and much-longer-than- expected space adventure is coming to an end. The astronauts set to splash down just hours from now.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: We're following breaking news on the war in Ukraine.

Sources tell CNN that minutes ago a high-stakes phone call between President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin wrapped up after a lengthy discussion a cease-fire proposal for Ukraine. The White House says the conversation lasted roughly two hours. Keep in mind Ukraine has already agreed to a 30-day cease-fire, but after launching the war more than three years ago and skeptical remarks from the Russian leader, it's unclear if the Kremlin is willing to make any concessions for peace.

We're joined now by CNN's Alex Marquardt.

Alex, what more have we learned about this key phone call?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, just that at least from the Russian side, speaking with our colleagues, that they think that it went very well, but no real substance.

And I think the biggest question right now, Boris, is whether the Russians did agree to this cease-fire. They have been delaying, frankly. I was in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, last week when the U.S. put forward the cease-fire proposal. It was a bit of a surprise then, but the Ukrainians immediately signed on, no preconditions, were ready to go for at least 30 days.

The Russians have been hemming and hawing. They have been pushing back with reservations and conditions. Steve Witkoff, the special envoy, went to Moscow, met directly with President Putin late last week, late into the night for hours. He still didn't agree to it. The Russians have argued that essentially it would give the Ukrainians an opportunity to rearm and reequip.

So it's clear there are some concerns here. But we believe that Putin and Trump will also be talking not just about how to get to this cease-fire and all those concerns the Russians have, but also the longer-term considerations and how to actually eventually get to a peace deal. President Trump has talked about dividing up assets, which obviously worries the Ukrainians, territorial concessions obviously in play, as well as where there are troops on the map, that kind of thing.

We think that President Putin would be pushing for, say, a smaller Ukrainian military, making sure that there are no NATO peacekeepers and no NATO membership for Ukraine. So there are a lot of details that need to be ironed out. We heard Steve Witkoff say that philosophically Putin agrees to this cease-fire, but really want to hear about whether this has been agreed to, because this would be the beginning of a longer process.

And, obviously, there are worries that President Putin is playing President Trump.

SANCHEZ: Yes, definitely a lot to consider there.

Alex Marquardt, thank you so much for the update.

Let's get some more perspective on this critical call with Jeffrey Edmonds. He is the former director for Russia at the National Security Council, also a senior fellow at the Center For a New American Security.

Jeffrey, great to see you, as always.

The Trump administration is expecting Russia to at least keep some of the land, its troops already control, roughly 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. Considering all the possibilities, all the potential outcomes when this war began, how do you view that?

JEFFREY EDMONDS, FORMER DIRECTOR FOR RUSSIA, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: I think that -- like I have beaten this before, that this really is not about land. I mean, of course, they're going to hold on to what they have already taken, and they want to take more. There are other areas they have claimed that Ukraine still controls.

But I think it's just so important to remember that it's really -- it was said earlier the demilitarization of Ukraine, its guaranteed neutral status. These are the things that drove Putin, that he entered war for, and I don't think he is stepping away from those right now. SANCHEZ: What are you looking for to come out of this call in terms

of the security guarantees that Ukraine is demanding?

[13:05:01]

EDMONDS: I don't think the Ukraine is really going to get security guarantees. I'd be very surprised to see what those are, if they did exist.

What we are seeing and what I have said on your show a couple of times recently is that Russian troops were making slow but steady progress in the east. That's actually stalled and slowed quite a bit. I wouldn't make too much of that, but what you might see come out of these talks is something from Putin, some kind of proposal from Putin that would enable Russian troops to perhaps reequip and rearm while keeping Ukraine weak.

SANCHEZ: I do wonder what you make of the White House and comments previously from President Trump that might factor into these discussions about NATO membership long term for Ukraine. Do you think it's likely off the table?

EDMONDS: I think it's -- I do think it's off the table for this administration. They have been very clear that NATO membership is really not in the near future for Ukraine.

And I think that that's also a red line for Putin and that he wouldn't enter any kind of cease-fire as long as that was still on the table.

SANCHEZ: And how about President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's future? Because Putin has repeatedly said that he wants him out of power.

EDMONDS: That's right. And I think that's one of the conditions. And it would be quite something for us to try to force that event.

I actually think, since the Oval Office blow-ups, Zelenskyy has actually gained a little bit in the polls. He has been there a long time and he has come under criticism locally, but I think he still has some staying power.

SANCHEZ: It looks like we're having some trouble. I don't know if it's on my end, but I wasn't able to hear the last part of your response, Jeffrey.

Would you mind just repeating that last sentence?

EDMONDS: Yes, I think that, while Zelenskyy has come under criticism, he's still popular with a lot of the population, and I don't see him going anywhere any time soon.

SANCHEZ: All right, there we go.

Jeffrey Edmonds, thank you so much for your perspective. Appreciate it, as always -- Brianna.

KEILAR: At the same time, a fragile cease-fire in the Middle East falling apart, Israel unleashing a new barrage of strikes across Gaza, leading to the deadliest single day of the war with Hamas in more than 15 months, hospitals overwhelmed, as wounded poured in.

Gaza's Health Ministry says the Israeli strikes killed more than 400 people, including more than 130 children. Israel's defense minister is now warning Hamas that -- quote -- "The rules of the game have changed." The Israeli government is demanding new cease-fire terms, while Hamas is insisting on sticking with the previous truce agreed to by both sides.

We are going to follow this and get a live report in here just ahead. We will be back with just moments -- in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:12:18]

KEILAR: A fragile cease-fire in the Middle East falling apart, Israel unleashing a new barrage of strikes across Gaza.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond is tracking the latest from Tel Aviv.

Jeremy, what are you learning about the strikes?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, this was the deadliest single day in Gaza since November of 2023, more than 15 months ago, as more than 400 people were killed, 500 at least wounded in these Israeli strikes overnight.

All happening within a matter of hours after the Israeli government decided that, following Hamas' rejection of the latest proposal from the U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff to release five living hostages and the bodies of several others, that Israel decided to go back to war, effectively ending this cease-fire and launching a massive bombardment of Gaza that is likely going to escalate in the coming days and weeks, potentially to include sending ground troops back into combat in Gaza for the first time in two months since the cease-fire came into effect.

Now, Hamas, for its part, has insisted that it was willing to continue to engage in negotiations to reach phase two of this agreement, which would ultimately lead to an end of the war in Gaza. But this Israeli government has been very clear that they were not interested in reaching phase two, ending the war, at least not as of yet, instead seeking this kind of smaller deal that would see the release of several hostages and extend the cease-fire for about a month or so, kicking the can down the road, as it were, as it relates to the thorniest issues related to all of this.

What we are expecting now, as I stand here in Hostage Square, is to hear from several former hostages who were released during this latest cease-fire. We have been hearing from several of them throughout the day today expressing their enormous concern about what Israel's renewed bombardment of Gaza will mean for the remaining hostages held there. The families of those hostages as well expressing that concern, with

some fearing that the Israeli government has chosen to forsake their lives in order to move forward with its other goal of this war, which is to destroy Hamas.

That being said, an Israeli official has told me that, if Hamas comes back to the negotiating table and agrees to release a number of hostages along the lines of the Witkoff proposal last week, then Israel -- that could stop this kind of march to war that we are currently watching.

It remains to be seen whether that is something that Hamas is willing to do. For the time being, though, Hamas has yet to retaliate against Israel. No rockets have been fired from Gaza in the nearly 24 hours since Israel has launched these attacks. Certainly, a very tense moment and a very deadly day in Gaza, where we are seeing that among so many of the dead once again are children -- Brianna.

[13:15:03]

KEILAR: Jeremy Diamond, live for us from Tel Aviv, thank you -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Some new developments now, as a legal fight plays out over President Trump's decision to deport hundreds of mostly Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members. As the drama unfolds, Chief Justice John Roberts is now chiming in, issuing a rare statement seemingly aimed at the president's call to impeach judges who rule against him.

Now, Roberts did not mention Trump by name, but his rebuke comes hours after Trump called for the federal judge who temporarily blocked the deportation flights be removed. Those flights continued on to El Salvador over the weekend, even after the judge ordered them to turn around. The White House insists it did not violate the court's ruling.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz joins us now with the latest details.

Katelyn, walk us through this statement from Chief Justice John Roberts.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Boris, there are legal arguments, there are political statements, and then there's what we have here, this highly unusual statement from the chief justice, essentially saying, if you have a problem with a way a judge rules in a case, not mentioning Trump by name, of course, but clearly it is something in response to Trump and administration officials going out there attacking judges, saying they should be impeached, saying they're overstepping their boundaries.

If you have a problem with that, there are appeals. There's a legal process.

The specific words from Chief Justice John Roberts: "For more than two centuries it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

Now there is, what is happening in court with Judge Jeb Boasberg. He is a Democratic appointee to the bench, but he's the chief judge of the D.C. District Court. He gave an order, both an oral order and a written order, stopping the removal of migrants from the U.S. under a presidential proclamation.

The administration has not just been out there attacking the judge in the way that Trump was on social media. They also are fighting in court, but the things that they can do, they can complain in court about the judge's rulings, they can ask him to look at additional facts, they can even ask for him to be removed from the case.

That's not where we are, we're not even at the point of having real appeals going to the Supreme Court. It still is a case in its very early stages, where Judge Boasberg has a lot of control and is still giving a lot of orders there.

SANCHEZ: And to your point about political versus legal arguments, the White House has said, for example, that oral arguments are different from written arguments, that these flights were already in international waters and therefore harder to turn around.

All of that is getting sorted out, as you pointed out, in court. And there was a big deadline just a little bit over an hour ago for DOJ to turn over specific information related to these deportations. How did that all go down?

POLANTZ: Right. So they keep hinting at there are certain things that the administration doesn't want to put out there publicly.They want to keep some things protected under national security. They keep hinting in their filings, they don't think the courts should have much of a role to play when the president wants to deport migrants like these.

But what they said specifically at noon is there was a sworn statement written from a top ICE official saying this is how these flights were leaving the United States and after the judge issued his written order on Saturday, there was a third flight that took off with migrants headed out of the country after the judge made that written order and that flight took off.

The people on that flight were being removed for reasons other than the presidential proclamation that the judge said could not be used by the administration. So they're trying to clear up the details. The judge is trying to get more answers. It still is a pretty intense situation in court, but the administration at least, as far as procedure goes, they're playing ball.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

POLANTZ: They're submitting sworn statements. They're giving facts. They're showing up for hearings and they're still making a lot of different legal arguments.

SANCHEZ: A fight that at least White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt says the White House wants. Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much for walking us through that --

Brianna.

KEILAR: Joining us now is Skye Perryman. She is the president of Democracy Forward, one of the groups suing President Trump for using the Alien Enemies Act.

Skye, thank you so much for being with us.

And we should note -- and the Trump administration has -- these are bad guys, if you take their word for it, which you have to do, because there are no other eyes on all of these individual cases. So explain, as we consider that this is not a group of people who garner much sympathy, why you think people should have concerns about how Trump is going about this.

SKYE PERRYMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, DEMOCRACY FORWARD: Well, first of all, every American in this country should be concerned about the president of the United States seeking to use wartime authority in a time where we are not being invaded and we are not at war.

[13:20:07]

What Trump is trying to do is to use -- misuse authority that has only ever been used three times, in the War of 1812, in World War I, and in World War II. And, in World War II, this authority led to the internment of Japanese Americans, for which presidents, courts, and Congress have since apologized because of the horrific conditions.

But let me address your other issue, which is the continued claims by the administration around gang violence and security. Everybody takes all of that incredibly seriously. No one wants to live in a country where people are not safe.

But what the administration has done here is, they are seeking to deport people who have had no process. If they were confident that people were dangerous to the public safety, they could go through the process that the president has in order to be able to take law enforcement action against individuals.

That's not what they're doing here by invoking this act. They're seeking to try to sidestep that process. And, beyond that, what we see is just continued secrecy and misinformation coming out of the administration. So we would really caution all Americans to not be distracted by the White House's rhetoric and its made-for-TV moments, and instead really look at what's happening here, which is not normal, and which is an incredibly concerning exercise of wartime power in peacetime, depriving people of process.

KEILAR: What is your reaction to the Trump administration arguing that it didn't violate Judge Boasberg's written order, though they deported these individuals as the judge gave a verbal order to stop or turn around planes that they were on?

PERRYMAN: We are highly alarmed by the administration's disregard for the rule of law, for a number of officials throughout the federal government claiming that they don't have to be bound by court orders, and by the facts of this case.

And so we have raised along with our co-counsel at the ACLU a number of those concerns with the court, and we are going to continue to work through the judicial process, as one does in this country, to assess compliance with this order. But this is -- the stakes are high. This is not normal, and this should concern every single American.

KEILAR: Do you see anything legally valuable to your case in Secretary Rubio's retweet of El Salvador's president saying, "Oopsie, too late"?

PERRYMAN: I mean, I certainly think that statements like that from administration officials, statements coming out of the White House, statements that we're seeing them make show a disregard for the rule of law. They show a disregard for this country's values, and we are raising those issues in the court process.

KEILAR: So, after multiple White House officials disparaged the judiciary, Trump has now called for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg, as I'm sure you're aware.

And that prompted the Supreme Court chief justice, John Roberts, to issue a rare statement, saying, impeachment is not an appropriate response, pointing to the appellate process existing for disagreements like this, citing two centuries of precedent on that.

Do you think that has an effect on how the Trump administration is responding to court decisions they don't like?

PERRYMAN: I mean, look, I don't really know how -- the Trump administration seems to not want to be bound by our Constitution, by our judges or by our laws.

But I think this is a significant statement. It is a truthful statement. There are certain provisions in our laws that allow for congressional engagement with judges, but it is not just because you disagree with the judge's order.

And, here, this is really an attempt to politicize and an attempt to undermine the rights of all people, because, again, the court process is a process that is important and is important to be accessed by all people.

I also want to address here, and I think it's important that people understand, the administration likes to throw around terms like Obama judge or Biden judge. I mean, they throw around these terms. And I would really just implore all Americans to start getting the facts.

In this instance, the chief judge of the federal court in D.C., Judge Boasberg, was actually appointed to the judiciary, not the federal judiciary, but the local courts here in D.C., by President George W. Bush. And he has been a judge that has served in a range of capacities, including in national security capacities.

And so this just underscores the need, whether it's the administration using politicized rhetoric around so-called gang members, but not wanting to go through a proper process, whether it's them attacking judges, that it is time for all of us to really be availing ourselves of the facts. And that is not, unfortunately, coming out of the White House.

[13:25:01]

KEILAR: Skye Perryman, thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate it.

PERRYMAN: Thanks.

KEILAR: And coming up: The Trump administration promotes two IRS whistle-blowers who accused prosecutors of going easy on Hunter Biden. We have some new CNN reporting on that.

And 278 days overdue, two American astronauts are finally heading home. We have an update on the highly anticipated return of Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Tens of thousands of federal probationary employees fired by the Trump administration are back on the job.