Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

After Call with Trump, Putin Agrees to Temporary Pause on Attacks on Ukraine's Energy and Infrastructure Targets; Fragile Ceasefire Collapses as Israel Launches New Strikes in Gaza; Chief Justice Roberts Rebukes Trump's Rhetoric on Federal Judge. Aired 3- 3:30p ET

Aired March 18, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:56]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A possible step toward peace: President Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin speaking and agreeing on new talks toward a potential ceasefire. A major move could come tomorrow with an expected exchange of prisoners of war.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And the outbreak grows: The number of measles cases across three states just went up. What we know about the efforts to contain the spread of a disease that was once eradicated in the United States.

And Batman and Robin, Sonny and Cher, Bill and Ted, iconic American duos and now we add to the list Butch and Suni. The two very much not stranded astronauts, kind of stranded, returning to Earth after their nine-month trip to space.

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

SANCHEZ: We are learning new details today about the high-stakes phone call between President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin says it has agreed to a temporary halt on attacks on energy infrastructure facilities in Ukraine for 30 days. It's also though demanding a halt of foreign military aid and intelligence to Ukraine. Moscow also says it's agreed to a prisoner exchange with Kyiv that would take place tomorrow and would include 175 people on both sides. CNN's Alex Marquardt has been tracking this for us.

So Alex, what is the White House saying about this call?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, they're keen to show this as a win or at least something that they got from the Russian side. But it's really hard to see this as anything other than the White House settling for far less. For the past week we have heard Donald Trump and his top aides talking about how they want a full ceasefire and nothing less. That the guns have to fall silent, the fighting has to stop all across the front line in order for a full peace to be negotiated. The question going into this call today was would Vladimir Putin agree to a full ceasefire. He has not and it appears that President Putin has gotten Donald Trump to agree to him. The U.S. side has agreed to a very narrow halt in the fighting. The fighting, make no mistake Boris, will continue.

But what the U.S. has agreed to is a stop in the targeting on both sides of energy infrastructure. And so, I want to read a little bit of what the White House statement said following this call. "The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace. These negotiations will begin immediately in the Middle East."

Boris, it doesn't say where and when these negotiations will start, but this is kind of a drip, drip, drip approach. The Russians just saying we'll only agree to this little part of it. And interestingly, according to the Kremlin, it was President Trump who proposed this very narrow ceasefire.

So, it's - this is the White House settling for less than they had asked for, had demanded. They had said that if Russia doesn't agree to a full ceasefire that they will be an impediment to peace.

And then lastly, Boris, the Russians are also making clear that in order for there to be a longer term peace that foreign military aid and the intelligence sharing has to stop for Ukraine. It is clear that the Russians want to keep Ukraine as weak as possible and those thorny issues have yet to be addressed. This is a very, very narrow agreement between the U.S. and Russia.

SANCHEZ: Alex Marquardt, thank you so much for breaking that down for us. Brianna?

KEILAR: Just moments ago Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his first public comments since unleashing a deadly new offensive in Gaza overnight, shattering what had been a two-month ceasefire with Hamas. The Prime Minister promising even more strikes until Israel reaches its military goals, stated as the return of all remaining hostages, the destruction of Hamas and the promise that Gaza will no longer be a threat.

[15:05:09]

The blast that rocked the enclave overnight, killing more than 400 people and we have just learned one of those killed was the most senior Hamas political leader in Gaza. CNN's Jeremy Diamond is with us now from Tel Aviv.

Jeremy, tell us the latest. What are you learning?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, even as we have heard Israelis, including former hostages, speaking out against the Prime Minister's decision to carry out strikes in Gaza, go back to the war, the Prime Minister tonight made no bones about his decision to do so, saying that he had vowed that if Hamas did not return hostages, that Israel would return to battle and that that was indeed the decision that he made yesterday as Israel launched strikes early this morning around two in the morning that have resulted in the deadliest single day in Gaza in more than 15 months now, with more than 400 Palestinians having been killed, including many children.

The Israeli Prime Minister said that Israel will continue to escalate its attacks in Gaza targeting Hamas unless Hamas comes back and agrees to release additional hostages. He said the negotiations from now on will be conducted under fire, and that is indeed the Israeli Prime Minister's approach here to carry out these negotiations as the Israeli military ramps up its attacks using military pressure as an attempt at leverage in these ongoing negotiations.

But what we heard from the former hostages who spoke here in Hostages Square just a few hours ago was that they do not believe that military pressure will work to free the hostages. Instead, they said that military pressure will endanger the lives of the hostages, with some of them, including the American-Israeli citizen Keith Siegel, recalling the moment that those negotiations collapsed in late 2023. The fear that he felt as Israeli warplanes were once again in the skies, dropping missiles that shook the home in which he was being held.

We heard from them instead an urging a call for Israel to return to the negotiating table and for the international community to pressure not only Israel but also Hamas to free the hostages and end the war. Brianna? Boris?

KEILAR: Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv, thank you. Boris?

SANCHEZ: A lot of ground to cover with these two big international stories. Let's discuss with CNN National Security Analyst and former Deputy Director of National Intelligence Beth Sanner.

Beth, thank you so much for being with us. Let's start in the Middle East with ...

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Right.

SANCHEZ: ... Gaza and Israel. Why resume hostilities now?

SANNER: Yes. Because it's not completely clear. One thing that is very clear is that the negotiations in Cairo have broken down, and those negotiations weren't as was originally envisioned, that we would get through phase one, that ended March 1, and we would move to phase two. Instead, now the U.S. has proposed, with Israel's backing, a bridging agreement that we've heard Witkoff talk about, Steve Witkoff talk about, which is just an extension of phase one.

Hamas hasn't been playing, and so they're doing this. But, you know, Netanyahu came out really forcefully saying this isn't about politics, and maybe the lady doth protest too much, because the budget negotiations are well underway.

SANCHEZ: Well, help us understand how domestic politics in Israel are shaping what Netanyahu is doing here, because I think it underlies a lot of his actions.

SANNER: Absolutely. I mean, politics underlies all politicians' actions ...

SANCHEZ: Right,

SANNER: ... to some degree, right? So by the end of this month, they have to pass a budget or the government will fall. This action actually really unites and solidifies the far-right, which has been kind of cracking a little bit with the religious parties, challenging Netanyahu on this budget for their own interests. And instead, Ben- Gvir, our friend Ben-Gvir, the former security minister, far-right guy, has rejoined the government as of today, and I think the religious parties are also going to rally around because this is something that they believe in.

SANCHEZ: What are Hamas' capabilities right now, given that they've been ground down and that really all Iranian proxies in the region have been in a nadir?

SANNER: Yes, absolutely. I mean, you know, Hamas, though, has been really not helping themselves. Terrorist group, let's not be unclear about who these people are.

SANCHEZ: Right.

SANNER: But they've been parading around every hostage release, they're in their sharp uniforms, and they've been walking around in their uniforms even in between the hostage releases. And so today's strike, they took out the political head of Hamas inside Gaza, and the Israelis did with this strike, and they're saying, you know, no more, because the whole Israeli game here is to destroy Hamas as a political and a military force, and they've been kind of shown up recently that that is not working.

[15:10:07]

SANCHEZ: There was a direct tie between the Middle East, and what's happening in the Middle East, and this call between Vladimir Putin and ...

SANNER: Sure.

SANCHEZ: ... Donald Trump. Specifically in the readout from the White House, it says that the Middle East is a region of potential cooperation. Also notably, there was a line in there saying the two leaders shared the view that Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel. How does this fit into a readout about Ukraine? Help us understand that.

SANNER: Well, it fits in a couple ways. The first way is that this call, especially the readout from the Kremlin, is all shaped around this idea that Vladimir Putin is an equal, a great man, a great power and has global responsibilities. That's the last paragraph of this thing. And this is where the Middle East fits in, is because Russia's been a player and all of a sudden they got pushed out. When Syria fell, Russia was out. This is a way of Putin reasserting himself. He also does not like it that Trump is kind of moving in and being much more of the player. But on Iran, you know, it's interesting. They are moving Iran to the center of this conversation because Russia right now does not want the United States to attack Iran. That's what Trump has put on the table. That's what Israel wants, and Russia doesn't want it.

And so they reiterated non-proliferation issues, that Iran shouldn't have a bomb in so many words, and that's actually kind of a positive move here. But it's all framed about Putin being in charge and large.

SANCHEZ: Right. Elevating Russia to a stature of equal to the United States. Quickly before we go, what does this narrow ceasefire on energy infrastructure mean ...

SANNER: Yes.

SANCHEZ: ... for peace long-term? Is this a building block ...

SANNER: Right.

SANCHEZ: ... or is this a consolation prize?

SANNER: This is a way of Russia appearing to do what the United States wants while actually saying absolutely no to the unconditional ceasefire that everybody agreed to in Riyadh. But the way that they're framing it, they're trying to pander and make it look like they're agreeing. But in fact, what have they agreed to?

The very thing that Ukraine is being successful right now in this war is striking all of Russia's energy infrastructure. So, picking that one thing is a win, and all the things, Boris, in this Kremlin readout is about for the next phase to actually get to a full ceasefire. These are Kremlin terms. These are not American terms. This is definitely Putin driving this agreement.

SANCHEZ: Beth Sanner, appreciate the analysis. Thanks so much.

SANNER: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Still to come, a rare statement from a Supreme Court justice after President Trump calls to impeach a judge who ruled against him.

Plus, a new report on the Trump administration's purge of DEI from the federal government. Pentagon webpages celebrating Native American war heroes, just the latest to be erased.

And later, Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams finally coming home. The astronauts set to splash down off the coast of Florida in just a matter of hours.

Stay with CNN NEWS CENTRAL. We're back in just a few minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:17:36]

SANCHEZ: President Trump's escalating rhetoric against the federal judiciary apparently drawing the attention of Chief Justice John Roberts. He released a rare statement today, 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 said the federal judge who temporarily blocked the White House from deporting hundreds of migrants with alleged gang ties be removed. Those deportations did go on as planned, landing in El Salvador this past weekend, even though the judge ordered those flights to turn around. The Trump administration maintains that it did not violate the court's ruling. CNN's Katelyn Polantz joins us now.

And Katelyn, this is a highly unusual move by the chief justice. Walk us through his statement.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, this statement comes in this windup where the judge in this case in federal court in D.C. is asking a lot of questions and had told the administration, you can't remove migrants from U.S. soil under a specific presidential proclamation against illegal aliens from 1798.

So Donald Trump, others at the White House were very angry at the judge. They have politically made a lot of statements there. And now the chief justice of the United States is making this extraordinary statement. We so rarely hear statements from the chief justice saying, if you have an issue with someone who is making decisions on the federal bench, there's a proper place for that. It is making a decision or it is making an appeal in court or it is taking things through the court process. The place for this is the appeals.

A reminder there that they are still in court. They do have arguments to make. And we're seeing a lot of activities still, even before Judge Boasberg here in this case, the administration's still playing ball there. They are still submitting information to the judge. They're explaining more about who exactly was on those fights - flights out of the country when they were leaving, who they have still in U.S. custody. And then just a few minutes ago, we got another order from the judge saying by tomorrow, under seal in a private way, they can share more information with the judge. He wants to know more about the timing of those flights, when they actually left the waters of the United States.

[15:20:01]

SANCHEZ: There's a dispute about whether or not they were in international waters. The administration is maintaining that they were and therefore the judge's verbal order didn't matter as much as a written order and so the timing of this is in question.

POLANTZ: The whole point, though, is did they intentionally ...

SANCHEZ: Right.

POLANTZ: ... try to remove people from the U.S. knowing the judge was having this hearing ...

SANCHEZ: Right.

POLANTZ: ... and that they could be in violation of this order. The whole question is, is that - and then the bigger question - is Trump the only person who can make decisions on this or does the court have a role here?

SANCHEZ: Yes. And Katelyn, very quickly, just in the last few minutes, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from some of the moves it was intending to make with USAID. Tell us about that.

POLANTZ: Specifically, the moves being made by Elon Musk at the Department of Government Efficiency. They say no more firings of people at USAID, no more cutting contractors' contracts, and that the court finds the defendant's unilateral actions to shut down USAID likely violated the U.S. Constitution.

SANCHEZ: Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much for that update. Brianna?

KEILAR: With us now to discuss is Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley of California.

Congressman, thanks for being with us.

You've heard President Trump calling for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg, and that's something that prompted Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts to issue this rare statement that said impeachment is not an appropriate response, pointing to the appellate process existing for disagreement. Who's right here?

REP. KEVIN KILEY (R-CA): Yes. Well, Chief Justice Roberts does have a history of firing off these little missives. For example, when Chuck Schumer stood before the court and threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, saying you've unleashed a whirlwind and you're going to pay a price, you're not going to know what hit you, Chief Justice Roberts came out then and said that he thought that these sort of threats were inappropriate.

I think the difference here is that whatever you might think of what the President has said, President Trump, that is, he is simply suggesting that the Congress make use of a process that's laid out in the Constitution. He's not engaging in the sort of threats or intimidation tactics that Chief Justice Roberts rebuked Chuck Schumer for. And, of course, we do know that after Chuck Schumer made those remarks, there were indeed threats against those particular justices.

KEILAR: I'm sorry. You said that Congress make use?

KILEY: That's correct. The impeachment authority is vested in Congress.

KEILAR: Oh, sorry. I thought you were talking about what he's doing when it comes to these deportations.

So, I do want to ask you, the federal judiciary writ large has delivered many defeats to the liberal agenda of late. And you hear President Trump taking aim at the federal judiciary here with a pretty big criticism. But we should note that the Supreme Court, while it granted Trump expanded presidential immunity, it's overturned Roe v. Wade, affirmative action in college admissions, expanded gun rights, blocked Biden's student loan relief plan, is it safe to assume you are okay with the appellate process that led to those outcomes?

KILEY: We have a process in the United States judicial system. That's absolutely correct. There's also a long history of politicians being critical of court decisions. There is actually a whole book written called "American Politicians Confront the Court." I'm sure you remember President Obama when he called out and criticized the Supreme Court as they're sitting right here during the State of the Union. And I do think that some of these recent decisions are very troubling and actually go to the core of the President's authority to keep our country safe and so ...

KEILAR: But if you have an issue with President Obama saying what he said during his State of the Union. Do you have an issue with Trump? You don't have an issue with Trump saying to impeach a judge.

KILEY: What I said is that the President is expressing his view about making use of a legal process. And you know, you do have to question what Chief Justice Roberts said to some extent that, you know, mere disagreement with an opinion is not the basis for using that power. I mean, how far are we going to stretch that principle? You know, if you had a judge who insisted on reviving the Dred Scott decision and decided that he was going to move forward without whatever the Supreme Court said, then is that something that we wouldn't - as the House of Representatives, have a right and a responsibility to take a look at?

So, look, I'm not someone who's going to say we should be, you know, starting impeachment proceedings against individual judges with - based on individual decisions. But I also think that it is a power that's there in the Constitution, that it's the right of the House to exercise and the Senate then to conduct a trial.

And, you know, the Chief Justice and the President can both weigh in on where they think it is or is not appropriate to use it. But ultimately, it's the responsibility of Congress as set forth in the Constitution.

KEILAR: I guess we'll see if you decide to proceed with that.

[15:25:02]

I do want to ask you about some DOGE cuts. You had a town hall last night, a teletown hall. And I do want to note for people who don't know your district, you represent most of the Sierra Nevada, which is just a beautiful part of California that has a number of national forests as well. I'm not exaggerating. And I am a Californian, so I could be biased. But I will just say ...

KILEY: Yes.

KEILAR: ... I think it goes without saying, it's gorgeous. Lake Tahoe, Mono Lake, Death Valley, it's this spring and summer playground. And The New York Times is reporting almost 4,000 campsites across many of California's 18 national forests could close for part or all of the summer season, according to this internal U.S. Forest Service spreadsheet they got a look at. Do you know how many of those campsites are in your district?

KILEY: Well, you're absolutely right about my district. I have the good fortune of representing the most beautiful district in the state of California, maybe even the whole country. It's also the largest district in the state of California. It's about 450 miles north to south, covering 10 different counties, a number of national forests. It includes Lake Tahoe. It includes Death Valley.

And so, access to these forests, to the parks, to recreation, to these natural wonders is incredibly important, both for our residents and for folks who want to visit. And we've conveyed that to the administration. As a matter of fact, I just wrote a letter this last week with several of my colleagues in the House talking about the importance of enabling our parks to be able to staff up for the peak visitation seasons that are coming soon.

And one way to do that is by providing direct higher authority to the individual parks. I'm also concerned about, you know, making sure we have the resources for fire mitigation and forest management projects. We've had some of the worst wildfires.

KEILAR: Do you know - but I ask you, do you know how many campsites are in your district and have you gotten an answer to that letter?

KILEY: There's quite a few campsites in my district. I can't give you a specific answer ...

KEILAR: I mean, that are going - how many ...

KILEY: ... but I think that we're very working with the administration to make sure we get ...

KEILAR: ... I - the question I asked you is how many of those campsites that could be closed are in your district?

KILEY: Again, I don't have a specific number of the number of campsites in my district ...

KEILAR: Okay. Have you gotten any answer to your letter?

KILEY: ... but I can tell you that it's a very important part of the character of our district and we're doing everything we possibly can to make sure that folks have access. And that's what we wrote to the administration about this last week.

KEILAR: Okay, because we're talking - three visitor centers in Eldorado National Forest could close because of low staffing, including the loss of all administrative staff at the district office. The team that manages the Lake Tahoe Basin area, this is all according to The New York Times, noted a 33 percent reduction in recreational staff and the termination of the only permanent wilderness ranger position for desolation wilderness, which is one of the most popular wilderness areas in all of the United States, according to the Forest Service.

So you're talking about staffing up, but that appears to be perhaps some of the least of your problems right now, because they're staffing down even from what would be lower seasonal numbers. Have you gotten an answer from the White House to your letter?

KILEY: Well, in reality, actually, you mentioned Tahoe, which is also in my district, one of the truly great wonders we have in the entire country. I just shepherded through the House of Representatives and was signed into law by President Biden ...

KEILAR: But had they answered your letter?

KILEY: ... the Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act, which is going to bring up to $300 million ...

KEILAR: Should I ...

KILEY: ... in additional funding ...

KEILAR: Should I take ...

KILEY: ... to the Tahoe area.

KEILAR: Okay, should I take that as a no, Congressman Kiley?

KILEY: So, we are making sure that we're protecting that funding and that we get the folks that we need in order to maintain access to our parks.

KEILAR: So, they have not answered your letter.

KILEY: I - it was just sent a few days ago. But we have - the administration has expressed its commitment to working with us to make sure that we have the staffing levels that we need in order to maintain access to our parks. I mean, I think that that's something that we all - that's a value that we all share and these are truly national treasures. It's an important part of the character of California and of my district in particular. And so, we're going to be working together to make sure that we have all the resources that we need.

KEILAR: Yes, it's huge. It's - as I said, stunning, a very stunning area. Congressman Kevin Kiley, thank you so much.

KILEY: You bet. Thanks for having me.

KEILAR: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)