Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Administration Accidentally Texts Reporter War Plans; Appeals Court Holds Hearing on Trump's Alien Enemies Deportations; Former Surgeon General Criticizes Measles Response. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired March 24, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:01:08]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Breaking news into CNN, the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic with a jaw-dropping scoop, the headline speaks for itself, "The Trump administration accidentally texted me its war plans." Much more on this security lapse

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Happening now, an emergency hearing over a judge's order to block deportation flights by the Trump administration, we'll have the latest from inside the courtroom. And measles cases on the rise here in the U.S. Now, President Trump's former surgeon general is warning about the effects of vaccine skepticism. Dr. Jerome Adams will be joining us live. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

SANCHEZ: Thanks so much for joining us this afternoon. I'm Boris Sanchez alongside Brianna Keilar in the nation's capital and we start with a truly stunning story concerning the Trump White House. The Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic says that he was inadvertently given war plans hours before they were put into action. This new article was published about an hour ago, and it's Jeffrey Goldberg, the Editor-in- Chief of The Atlantic Magazine, and he says that U.S. national security leaders included him in a group chat about military strikes in Yemen before they happened. He says he could not believe that this was real, and then the bomb started falling.

KEILAR: This encrypted text chat featuring top White House officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. Here with us now is Chief National Affairs Correspondent, Jeff Zeleny, Chief National Security Correspondent, Alex Marquardt as well. Alex, just tell us a little bit about how this came to be.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: I mean, jaws are on the floor across Washington, across the national security space right now, because here you have a reporter who was included in the deliberations over one of the biggest national security events this year, the bombing of the Houthis that started on March 15th. And Jeffrey Goldberg, the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, was privy to the details days ahead of time. What happened is that it appears that Mike Waltz, the National Security Adviser, added him to a group conversation on Signal, this encrypted app, so presumably these other officials felt like what they were saying was safe. Why he was added, we still don't know. That is the first of a long list of questions. But others on this group chain included the CIA director, the secretaries of Defense, of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the list goes on. So in the days ahead of this bombing of Yemen, there are these conversations about whether it should happen.

J.D. Vance, the Vice President, actually pushed back saying it ran counter to other positions that the president had taken on Europe, but he deferred to the others and they decided to go ahead with this bombing of the Houthis, which started -- this latest campaign started, it's been going on for quite some time, on March 15th. Two hours before the first bombs dropped, an update was sent by Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, to the others, in which it had stunning detail about, Jeffrey Goldberg reports, the forthcoming strikes, the information about targets, the weapons the U.S. would be deploying and the attack sequencing.

And Goldberg repeatedly says he didn't know if it was real. It could have been a disinformation campaign; it could have been foreign spies who were trying to do this. But sure enough, two hours later, the bomb started to fall and the officials on this group chain started to celebrate what had happened. Marco Rubio says, good job, Pete Hegseth and your team. Mike Waltz and National Security Adviser, saying that the team down in Mar-a-Lago where the president was for the weekend, did a great job as well. There has been no pushback in terms of the veracity of this chain from the White House.

[14:05:00]

Brian Hughes, National Security Council Spokesman, just told CNN that this appears to be an authentic message chain. We're reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain, meaning Goldberg. He goes on to say that actually what Goldberg witnessed there was evidence of deep and thoughtful policy coordination. So, he's saying Goldberg actually witnessed how deeply we think about these issues. So just stunning on so many different levels, how Goldberg got added, what he witnessed there and then of course, what are the ramifications.

Now, there are all kinds of questions being asked already about what violations of the Espionage Act there are in terms of this handling of national defense information, the fact that this was on Signal. We're already starting to hear calls on Capitol Hill for hearings about how this happened. Certainly, people are going to be asking for heads to roll. I think one of the most striking things is how Goldberg finishes the piece.

These officials felt so comfortable talking about all this sensitive information on Signal, highlighted by the fact that Hegseth says we are currently clean on OPSEC, meaning Operational Security. He felt like this was tight on that Signal group chat. Clearly, it was not.

SANCHEZ: Really a stunning piece. Let's go to David Sanger now. He's joining us. He's a CNN Political and National Security Analyst. David, I mean, there are multiple angles of this story that are fascinating and simultaneously alarming. First, just your reaction to the fact that Jeffrey Goldberg was looped into this group chat.

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, it's one of those stories that, as you say, is stunning and you sort of don't know whether to laugh or cry. Obviously, he was added to this in error and, you know, that can happen. And that was an inadvertence. The remarkable thing is that the vice president, the CIA director, so many others, the defense secretary, the national security adviser feel comfortable creating a Signal chat. This is a private company, a private non-profit that is -- runs a considered quite secure, basically, chat function and app. And they're holding their conversations on that instead of on classified U.S. government channels.

And then according to Mr. Goldberg's account, Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary, drops the details of the war plan into this. And that's actually the bigger question of judgment here. The first one was an inadvertence. The second one was, obviously, a quite deliberate decision to take a classified war plan and drop it into a Signal chat.

KEILAR: Yeah, it's really unlike anything we've seen, David. And then, there's also --

SANGER: It is.

KEILAR: This -- the deliberation and so many issues are raised. You have the vice president saying, I'm not sure the president is aware. How inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now, meaning getting involved, clearing this passage, right, for trade, at the expense of the American taxpayer. There's a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I'm willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, et cetera.

So you're seeing some daylight between Vance and the President on that issue, which his spokesperson really tried to clear up, after it came to light that Goldberg had been on the text. You also have this issue of, it appeared they could have done this later. So if this wasn't necessarily an imminent thing they needed to do, did they -- did the administration go about it the right way of not enlisting Congress in pursuing this line of action?

SANGER: Well, a few things on this that I think are probably worth playing out. First of all, it's fascinating to see the debate among the national security members here. They were asking the right questions. J.D. Vance, if this account is correct, is playing right to type and saying, Gee, this is mostly this traffic is benefiting the Europeans. Why aren't the Europeans part of this? Why are we paying for it? I mean, that is -- fits right in what he has said publicly about his doubts about whether Europe is contributing enough, whether the issue is Ukraine or some other conflict.

The debate back and forth seems to be what you would expect among national security professionals. There was nothing wrong that I can see in my first read about the nature of the questions they were asking. They were the right questions. It does tell you that there is not the unanimity of view that the Trump administration and most administrations like to portray after a decision is made.

[14:10:00]

But it also tells you that none of them were self-conscious about the fact that they were using non-classified government channels to have that debate. And that's the issue here.

SANCHEZ: I do want to point out, William Martin, a Communications Director for Vice President Vance, gave a statement to CNN responding to this apparent daylight and he said, "The Vice President's first priority is always making sure that the president's advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations." It goes on to say that Vance unequivocally supports the administration's foreign policy, and that Trump and Vance have had subsequent communications about this specific incident and they are in complete agreement.

I want to go to the White House with Jeff Zeleny because, Jeff, the White House is not denying the content of this story.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: They're not denying the content of this story at all. In fact, a spokesman for the National Security Council, as well as a spokesman for the Vice President, effectively confirming the contents of the discussion, even the National Security Council, as Alex said a few moments ago, when you look at this sentence, it's really extraordinary. This threat is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials.

But in any other administration that I've covered, and this is the fifth president that I've covered, it's done in the Situation Room. It is done in classified channels. It is not done over Signal. And Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic also did the administration somewhat of a favor, A, by dropping out of the group chat as he reported, and B, by also not reporting many of the operational details that he said that he saw.

So the bottom line to all of this is, it offers a window if it's, you know, if it's all as it seems, it offers a very interesting window into how this administration is operating, or at least had operated. The White House chief of staff is weighing in at the end of it, congratulating everyone. At no point did anyone say, hey guys, we should sort of take this offline. You know, every office has a group thread perhaps that gets a little, you know, goes beyond what it should be talking about and people say, hey, like let's talk about this in person. That did not happen here.

So what we don't know is what the president's reaction is to this. My guess is he'll be asked about this in the hour. He'll be meeting with the Louisiana governor who's here at the White House to announce an economic deal. So we shall see if he's asked about this. But Mike Waltz, who's the Security Adviser, is the one who apparently added Jeffrey Goldberg onto the thread or someone using the Mike Waltz account. That is certainly going to be something for him to respond and answer to, there are many. He is, of course, a former Florida member of Congress. Many people in MAGA world are very suspicious of him anyway. So this will be very, very interesting to see, the fallout from this, if there is any. But, the president has not been asked about this. We assume he's aware, but we do not know at this hour.

SANCHEZ: Jeff, standby. We did get a response to this from Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton posting on Twitter, "Incompetence so severe that it could have gotten Americans killed. There is no world in which this information should have been shared in non-secure channels. Secretary Hegseth is in so far over his head that he is a danger to this country and our men and women in uniform. He needs to explain himself to Congress and be held accountable."

I do want to go back to Alex, because you've obviously covered national security for years. Why not go and have this discussion in a Skiff? Why go to Signal?

MARQUARDT: Well, they were presumably spread out. I mean, these are people who work in different buildings. I do think it speaks to how many in government are communicating now and of course, how this administration is going about its business. I mean, this conversation started with Mike Waltz saying, please designate a deputy for coordination on this. And that is commonplace. I mean, we're talking about the Principles Committee, that's essentially these guys, and then there is the deputies who handle so much of the paper flow and the decision making before it rises up.

These strikes started on a Saturday when the president was at Mar-a- Lago. Secretary Rubio was with him. Mike Waltz was with him there. And there were people elsewhere. So clearly, they felt a need to communicate quickly and rapidly on this messaging app that is perceived to be secure. And Brianna, you've made the point that oftentimes, many of these conversations disappear after a certain amount of time when you put -- when you put that on.

More and more people are operating on Signal here in Washington these days. And when you look at the way that this government has been operating, whether it's through DOGE or other aspects of the way that they are going about their business, it is not surprising, frankly, that they decided to take this offline, if you will, outside the standard channels.

[14:15:00]

All of us talk to a variety of sources in a variety of different ways and more and more that is on Signal. But when it comes to classified information, carrying out strikes around the world, obviously, there are very strict legal ways that you are supposed to go about this. And it is becoming increasingly clear that laws may have been broken here. You were reading some responses from Capitol Hill. Here's another one. Senator Chris Coons, Democrat, says every single one of the government officials on this text chain have now committed a crime, even if accidentally. So, this is just the beginning of this incredibly dramatic story.

KEILAR: Republican Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska saying, I've accidentally sent the wrong person a text, we all have. The unconscionable action was sending this info over non-secure networks. None of this should have been sent on non-secure systems. Russia and China are surely monitoring his unclassified phone, he was referring to Hegseth there. So, a lot of concern about this. Maybe that Goldberg did them a favor --

MARQUARDT: By dropping out.

KEILAR: -- and revealed. Yeah, for future comms where they have their principals text chain. Alex, thank you so much. David Sanger, thank you. Jeff Zeleny, really appreciate it as well.

And still to come, we're getting brand new information from inside court on emergency hearing over those deportation flights. We'll have details.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. Plus, a man accused of being one of the leaders of the MS-13 gang was in U.S. custody, but charges against him were quietly dropped. Why one federal agent is calling this a historical loss? And Democratic voters have been calling for more pushback against Donald Trump's agenda, but his party leadership showing significant signs of changing their strategy. We'll take a closer look at that and much more, coming up on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:21:25]

SANCHEZ: We are following breaking news into CNN. As President Trump faces the biggest legal challenge of his second term, right now, lawyers for Trump's Justice Department are trying to get an appeals court to overturn a federal judge's ruling that temporarily blocks them from deporting plane loads of migrants under a centuries-old wartime law.

KEILAR: A federal judge halted those flights saying the use of the Alien Enemies Act from 1798 to justify the deportations of suspected gang members is problematic and concerning. Just moments ago, an appeals court judge described Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act for those flights as "unprecedented territory." CNN's Katelyn Polantz is with us now. Katelyn, bring us up to speed on what's happened so far.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN Crime And Justice CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna and Boris, the ringing "out of this hearing so far," judge Patricia Millett asking or saying to the Justice Department Attorney, Nazis got better treatment than the people being removed by the Trump administration under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Justice Department having to respond, we take issue with that particular analogy. But what has happened so far in this hearing is that the Justice Department still arguing, still before the court, right at this very moment, here in Washington, D.C., they're trying to make this about the powers of the presidency. The big picture of Donald Trump making decisions about immigration, saying people can be put on planes and removed from the country, sent to El Salvadoran prison, making wartime decisions. The Justice Department wants the court to look at this in that big picture of presidential power. But the judges on this court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, three of them, Millett is an Obama appointee, where the other two are Republican appointees -- they are asking a different set of questions.

They are moving the conversation about this bigger idea into one that's much more narrow on whether the men who Donald Trump wanted to remove to the -- from the country under his very particular use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, very unprecedented. The court even points out that whether that is possible without letting these people have any sort of hearing before a court. The type of hearing Judge Millett is especially asking about is whether these men could be looked at as being part or not part of the Venezuelan gang that the administration is saying they are part of. That it is not about what Trump is doing here on immigration, Judge Millett was saying, it is about lower level officials, if they're implementing his policy in a correct way, one by one, as they are detaining these men and then putting them on a plane and moving them out of the country.

So, a very specific but also very important conversation here. The arguments are riveting. There is this big language about war, about the treatment of Nazis being removed from the country as an analogy. And now, we will continue to hear what the other side has to say, the lawyers for the migrants. Back to you.

SANCHEZ: Katelyn Polantz, keep us updated with what's happening in the courtroom. Thank you so much. We're joined now by Former U.S. Attorney, Harry Litman. Harry, thanks so much for being with us. So Judge Patricia Millett essentially arguing that the problem is not with Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act, or at least that's not what they're resolving today. It's rather the implementation by lower-level executives. What does the appropriate implementation of the Alien Enemies Act look like then in this case?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, there are two basic issues about it, Boris, and you're right about Judge Millett, who seems to be a solid vote against the administration, and she has done 95 percent of the talking. So the other, it's a little bit harder, more Delphi (ph). But two things, one, I want to say I'm not even a member of this group. You've got to give me notice and opportunity to do that. And the quibble that the administration is coming back with is, well, we gave the five people who were the name plaintiffs here. We never even deported them.

But Millett is very dogged in saying, yeah, but there is all these other people. It's a class action. You sent them off. And the administration has basically got no good response to that other than saying they could have done it a different way and therefore, this would've been improper. The other set of questions is about implementation. Is it right to say this is a predatory incursion by a foreign country as it needs to be? And the administration is taking a very extreme view, saying you can't even ask that question. But it's not clear that that issue will have to be addressed in order to deny the government relief. So right now, it really is the focus on -- I need a notice and an opportunity to be heard before you spirit me away in the night. And the question really is, what's up with Thomas and Henderson, the other two people on the panel? 95 percent of it has been Judge Millett.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. To your point about whether those folks have been processed appropriately, the administration perhaps has not given quite as verbose an argument in the courtroom as they have in the court of public opinion, because Borders Czar Tom Holman says that every single migrant on one of those planes was a member of TDA or MS- 13 while conceding "A lot of gang members don't have criminal histories," comparing them to suspected terrorists. How do you think the appeals court is going to approach the issue of who the government purports these passengers actually were?

LITMAN: Yeah, I think they're not going to be too -- I think they're going to be jaundiced at this view that Tom Homan says, well, they all were, take my word for it. Or even Donald Trump, although it's the lower officials who are implementing his order. That's an important point because it's harder to enjoin the president. I don't think they're going to go for it on this main point, and this ought to be enough. We'll see where the other two judges are, but it ought to be enough to deny the government relief. They're going to say that's very well and good that Tom Homan has said that, but that doesn't -- that's not due process. That's not notice, an opportunity to be heard.

And by the way, there are indications that as they say, mistakes were made here. So I think that's going to be the nub of the matter. And on that point, I think the court will go against the administration saying, we just -- you can't tell us. We have to take Tom Homan's word for it.

SANCHEZ: Harry Litman, thanks so much for sharing your perspective.

LITMAN: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Still to come, the growing measles outbreak has Donald Trump's Former Surgeon General, Dr. Jerome Adams, sounding the alarm. He joins us in just a few minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)