Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Ukraine-Russia Negotiations Continue; DOJ Stonewalling Judge on Deportation Flights; Interview With Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL); Firestorm Grows Over Leaked U.S. War Plans. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired March 25, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:45]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Downplay, discredit and flat-out deny, the administration's strategy taking shape after details of an overseas attack leak in a group chat. Top intel officials facing lawmakers about the security breach today. We're following the latest there.

And Tesla targeted. Americans furious with Elon Musk and his work for the White House are taking out their anger via attacks and vandalism on the car company. Now the FBI is looking into these threats.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And Florida has a labor shortage as it cracks down on undocumented migrants. State lawmakers say they have a solution, loosening child labor laws.

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

SANCHEZ: Thank you so much for joining us this afternoon. I'm Boris Sanchez, alongside Brianna Keilar, in Washington, D.C.

And we are following breaking news on Capitol Hill, where we just heard from the nation's top intelligence officials during a key hearing on global security threats. Today lawmakers grilled intel chief Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe just a day after we learned they were both part of a group chat discussing sensitive war plans with a reporter who was accidentally added to their thread.

The hearing got contentious, as senators pushed for the release of those messages. Here's how Gabbard responded when asked if she was part of that chat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): You are not T.G. on this group chat?

TULSI GABBARD, U.S. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I'm not going to get into the specifics of the...

(CROSSTALK)

WARNER: So, you refuse to acknowledge whether you are on this group chat?

GABBARD: Senator, I'm not going to get into the specifics.

WARNER: Why aren't you going to get into the specifics? Is this -- is it because it's all classified?

GABBARD: Because this is currently under review by the national security...

(CROSSTALK)

WARNER: Because it's all classified? If it's not classified, share the texts now.

GABBARD: As the White House previously stated...

WARNER: Is it classified or nonclassified information on this text?

GABBARD: I -- there was no classified material that was shared in that Signal chat.

WARNER: So, then, if there is no classified material, share it with the committee.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Now, Gabbard eventually kind of dropped that song and dance and talked a little bit about what was in that text chain, but also seemed to not recall a lot of what was in that text chain even just 10 or 12 days ago.

The White House, in the meantime, is in full damage control mode, with Trump now blaming a staffer of his national security adviser, Michael Waltz, for the mistake. Officials tell CNN the larger Trump team strategy now is to downplay what happened and discredit the journalist.

Our coverage begins with CNN's Alex Marquardt.

Alex, today's hearing was previously scheduled, the timing really impeccable for getting perhaps some questions at least asked, if not answers, figured out here. What else did these intel leaders say?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, normally this is a very important hearing because it focuses on the threats around the world, and that was what the Republicans on the committee chose to focus on.

One by one, not a single one decided to ask about this now brewing scandal over this Signal chat, whereas every single Democrat decided to focus this and particularly, on Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and the director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, both of whom were in this chat.

Director Ratcliffe was asked point blank whether this was a mistake, and he, shockingly, said no. So this was just a remarkable effort by mainly the two of them to defend this Signal group. And one of the things they said over and over was that there was no classified information that was released in this chat.

And when you look at what was reported by Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic, that's rather remarkable, because what he said that Pete Hegseth reported to the group, to these 18 national security officials, I want to read what Goldberg wrote.

He said: "What Hegseth said contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons that the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing."

Now, pressed on that, they did admit that there was some discussion around targets in general. And Ratcliffe also admitted that what he called pre-decisional strike deliberation, so a debate over whether to strike, something that should be done in classified channels, and therefore not on Signal.

[13:05:05]

I want to play a little bit more of the questioning by Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who had very pointed questioning for Director Ratcliffe. Here that is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): And they were discussing the timing of sending U.S. air crews into enemy airspace, where they faced an air defense threat, correct?

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: I'm going to, Senator, defer to the other principals that you're referring to about what the meaning and the context of what they were...

(CROSSTALK)

OSSOFF: They're talking about the timing of U.S. airstrikes, correct?

RATCLIFFE: Yes.

OSSOFF: Yes, and therefore the timing of sending U.S. air crews into hostile airspace, correct?

RATCLIFFE: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: So, Ossoff there making the point that not only what they were discussing in this group would have been very interesting to foreign intelligence officials, but he's also deferring to Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, who arguably put the most sensitive information in that chat.

And we heard that from both Gabbard and Ratcliffe, essentially saying, you have got to talk to Pete Hegseth over at the Defense Department, because he has what's called the classification authority over that information that was shared. Ratcliffe saying, everything that I put in there which might have appeared to be classified wasn't actually classified.

But because they clung to this defense that actually none of that was classified, we heard from the top Democrat, Warner, on the committee and others saying, just release the transcripts.

SANCHEZ: Yes, I wonder how they would feel if Jeffrey Goldberg actually did release the transcripts or what kind of trouble he might find himself in as a result.

MARQUARDT: Right.

SANCHEZ: Alex, it's been brought up now multiple times the fact that this happened as Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff was in Moscow negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine.

Is it obvious that foreign governments have access to some of the details that are on Signal generally? Could he have been exposed by being in a foreign country with his phone, essentially not far from the Kremlin, with these sensitive conversations happening?

MARQUARDT: Inside the Kremlin. He went to meet with Vladimir Putin.

SANCHEZ: Literally inside the Kremlin.

MARQUARDT: And Tulsi Gabbard was also outside the country on this conversation on her phone as well.

There is standard protocol when you go to an adversarial country like Russia that you have to turn off your phone, leave it behind, not use it in the country. You're supposed to use burner phones. Witkoff was in the country with his phone. We don't know to what extent he was using it, but that's another one of these major questions both for him and for Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbard admitted that she was out of the country at the time. She did -- would not tell the committee whether she was in that conversation her personal or her government phone.

KEILAR: Very interesting.

Alex, thank you so much.

Let's turn now to CNN's Alayna Treene, who is live for us from the White House.

Alayna, talk to us more about how the Trump administration is responding to the fallout today.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, there's a few things.

One, we heard now from President Donald Trump directly. He did an interview with NBC. And he mainly brought up as well that he was still confident in his national security adviser, Michael Waltz, something we have now heard from several top White House officials saying on the record. And, of course, it comes as Michael Waltz was actually the one who

inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg, the reporter from this "Atlantic" story, to this Signal chain. But this is what the president said.

He said: "Michael Waltz has learned a lesson and he's a good man." He also called it "the only glitch in two months and turned out not to be a serious one."

Now, look, this is what we're hearing the president tell media and also some of what we're hearing the White House say publicly. But, behind closed doors, it is a little bit different. I know a couple of administration officials told me that he -- the president was directly briefed on this yesterday afternoon, not long after the story dropped.

And the president was frustrated behind closed doors, I'm told, but also disparaged Jeffrey Goldberg behind closed doors. And that gets to the broader media strategy and kind of the messaging strategy that we're seeing the White House try to do right now to try and contain this story. One, we have seen now many officials deny that war plans were discussed.

We heard Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, say that yesterday. We also heard White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt say that today as well. They are also arguing that no classified information was in there, again, both Hegseth and Leavitt saying that. We also heard that from Gabbard and Ratcliffe, as Alex walked you through.

But then they're also trying to disparage Goldberg. And so this is the strategy here, really downplaying what took place in that chat, what happened overall, even the sense of using the Signal chain and trying to play this off. And we further learned that with this new statement that was just sent out from the White House moments ago, Boris and Brianna.

It reads -- quote -- "This is a coordinated effort to distract from the successful actions taken by President Trump and his administration to make America's enemies pay and keep Americans safe."

So, again, kind of discounting all of this. But I will say there is no question that this was a very embarrassing moment for this White House. There are so many questions that still need to be answered. One, why were they using the Signal chain? Two, why was someone inadvertently added to this chain, a reporter, no less?

[13:10:07]

And why were none of these top Cabinet officials, people like the vice president, the defense secretary, the CIA director, why didn't they check on this number? So many questions that still need to be answered. And I -- there are many questions as well if there's going to be a further investigation this, not just from Capitol Hill, of course, but also from some federal agencies as well.

We heard the FBI director, Kash Patel, kind of dodge on that question. I heard it's unlikely that they will actually do an investigation. But there's a chance that someone in the intelligence community in the federal government is going to want to look into this further.

KEILAR: All right, Alayna Treene, Alex, thank you so much.

Let's talk more now with Republican Congressman Brian Mast of Florida. He is a U.S. Army veteran. He was awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart for his service in Afghanistan. He now chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Congressman, you said yesterday to the Hill you are absolutely concerned about Signal being used here, but you won't back a -- quote -- "special investigation" because it -- quote -- "wasn't a systemic thing."

How do you know it wasn't a systemic thing without investigating it?

REP. BRIAN MAST (R-FL): Well, we know that Signal is an authorized form of communications. Director Ratcliffe spoke about it. I believe Tulsi Gabbard spoke about it as well.

I would not pretend that Signal is classified. It is not. It's not designed to be classified. It is designed to be what several have spoken about already, secure. And I am not a fan of legalese in any kind of way. I hate bringing it into conversation.

But I think, in this one, it actually bears to be a part of the conversation. Does what you're talking about only belong inside of specifically a SCIF because it reaches top secret, secret compartmentalized information, or is it sensitive, and you can talk about it when you're walking down the hall of the Pentagon or you can talk about it in another room in the White House or somewhere else?

And you do have to divide that information. Is it just sensitive, where you can talk about it somewhere else in what is supposed to be secure communications because you're in separate locations, or does it only belong inside of the SCIF? And that's what I think you see them arguing in their hearings over at the Senate, which is sensitive, yes, probably didn't want to report around this conversation, no doubt, but it didn't rise to the level of classified.

KEILAR: He said it's permissible to use Signal to communicate and coordinate for work purposes, provided that any decisions that are made are also recorded through formal channels.

So he talked about it more generally. I don't know that he talked about it specifically pertaining to this information that was discussed here. So let me ask you about that. Would you use Signal for classified information?

MAST: I would not use Signal for classified information. Again, let's split that hair, difference between classified and sensitive, right, sensitive being very different, not something that you have to digest in a SCIF.

Let me bring it back to first person for a second and just say this. Career military guy with lots of connections to military, I have conducted a lot of operations. Of all of the operations I have conducted as a member of joint special operations command in my time in the military, all of the planning that I have conducted, been a part of very specific planning, we never did it in a SCIF.

We did it in tactical operations centers. Sometimes, we did it on flight pads, on the ground, in different places. None of that planning was ever done in a SCIF. It was sensitive. We didn't necessarily want other people to know about it, but it wasn't that level of classification that we had to do it.

KEILAR: Yes, but you're doing it -- you're doing it in person, I take it.

So let's talk about this, which is a very different thing.

MAST: Yes and no. Let me correct that real quick.

KEILAR: Well, let me...

MAST: Sometimes in person, sometimes with other people coming in on a screen somewhere.

KEILAR: OK, so -- or maybe hopefully some kind of secure videoconference or something. Would you talk...

MAST: Right word, though, secure. You said secure, not classified.

KEILAR: Secure. Would you talk about upcoming military operations, weapons that will be used, targets that are going to be hit...

MAST: I may. I may.

KEILAR: Excuse me, including people, attack sequencing that is going to take place on Signal?

(CROSSTALK)

MAST: Yes, I may. Like I said, I don't really use Signal much for myself. But, again, going back in time to if I was doing planning operations as a part of the military, yes.

There's a very specific difference about is it classified or is it sensitive. And if I need to speak to somebody in a different environment where they're not co-located with me and I want to have a conversation, I might be using Signal. Why? Because it's authorized end-to-end encryption communications for secure communications.

That's the why of it.

KEILAR: It's not a classified platform, right? I mean, we should be clear about that.

So you're telling...

MAST: I think I have said that half-a-dozen times in this interview.

KEILAR: Yes. So, would you... MAST: Not for classified. Split the hair up. Is it sensitive or is it classified? Very important to this conversation.

KEILAR: So should members of the military feel comfortable then talking about pre-strike details on Signal? Is that the message for them?

[13:15:02]

MAST: I think -- no, I think it's a nuanced message. It depends on what you're talking about.

It depends on what you're talking about. It depends on who's read into that specific program that you're dealing with. It depends on, are you creating an operational liability, certainly? All of these things lend themselves to a level of common sense.

KEILAR: OK, well, this one was close hold, and arguably did create an operational liability, if you're talking about strikes that are going to be happening in two hours carried out by American troops in Yemen.

MAST: And if it would have resulted in anything other than an entirely ruthless strike without any American KIA, then it would be a very different conversation.

But the way that it resulted was a very ruthless strike with no American KIA.

KEILAR: Is that because it was Peter Goldberg -- or -- pardon me -- because it was Jeffrey Goldberg and not someone else who was added inadvertently to the text chain? Is that just luck?

MAST: I couldn't answer that one for you. I couldn't say whether it's luck or that or which one it might be.

But I could say there's a different conversation because of the outcome of the operation.

KEILAR: So, when you were running for Congress in 2016, you said that Hillary Clinton's handling of sensitive information personal e-mail on a personal server put American lives at risk.

You said in a Breitbart interview that there's a trust between the men and women who are serving downrange and their leaders and that Clinton broke that trust. You said -- quote -- "She wants to be the top person tasked with digesting intelligence and what is going on, on the battlefield. Every person should be absolutely in outrage over this."

Did Secretary Hegseth break the trust with the men and women serving downrange?

MAST: Certainly not.

And I give you my word as this moment, as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, if at any point Secretary Rubio or Secretary Hegseth go out there and keep a server in their basement, delete 30,000 e-mails off of it, then go on the Internet and try to figure out how it is that they wiped the server entirely clean while they're under investigation by the FBI, by their own administration, if at any time Secretary Rubio or Pete Hegseth do that, I give you my word that I will call for an investigation.

KEILAR: I'm not here to defend Hillary Clinton's e-mails. I asked her about them in the first campaign interview. And there were many questions to be had.

Why not have an investigation of what has happened here? Because there are many questions that have not been answered, and there were many questions, as you're aware -- you were part of it -- in that instance that were at least asked. There was an FBI investigation, even if I suspect you found the outcome unsatisfying. There was an investigation.

Why not investigate this?

MAST: So, one, you have those questions going on right now in the Senate. Two, it is my understanding that Senator Wicker and perhaps Chairman Rodgers here in the House are also mulling that over, given that this was a military operation, for the Armed Services Committees.

KEILAR: But you don't want -- I mean, you have jurisdiction. Why don't you want to investigate?

MAST: I don't think this rises to the level of an investigation like that, is my own personal opinion.

And, again, I'd give you the same point that I just made. If they start deleting 30,000 e-mails off a personal server kept in their basement well under investigation by the FBI...

KEILAR: Well, these are set to delete, sir.

MAST: ... and then trying to figure out to how wipe it clean entirely, then I will conduct that investigation.

KEILAR: These are set to delete at one week, in four weeks.

MAST: They're not -- he's not -- you're trying to conflate something that's not the reality.

They're not going out there trying to delete something while under investigation by the FBI.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: They're not under investigation. You are not investigating them.

MAST: That's exactly right. They're not.

KEILAR: There is -- there is...

MAST: And they're not trying to go out there and delete something. If you -- I mean, we're talking about a conversation from many years ago.

KEILAR: No, no, it's set -- sir, it's set to delete. Sir, it's in -- it's set to delete at one week or four weeks. It is set to delete.

MAST: And also set to have a recording of any conversations that take place, as is required.

KEILAR: How do you know that?

MAST: That's what's required. They're supposed to keep a record of the correspondence that takes place.

KEILAR: That's what was required of Hillary Clinton. How do you know that that is what is happening here?

There's a difference between something being required and something actually happening. So, if that is required, then, are you going to make sure it's happening by requesting that those communications?

MAST: Yes, I will. And, also, we have this playing out right now in front of us, where it is being spoken about again in a Senate intelligence hearing as we speak.

KEILAR: They said they didn't recall. You heard it. They said so many times that they didn't recall, they didn't recall what was in the texts on Signal.

MAST: Yes, they might not recall what's in the texts.

But, again, it is a requirement that they go out there and they document for the purpose of keeping record of these things. And I would hold everybody to that expectation. If that's the requirement for you, you hold to that expectation.

KEILAR: OK, so just to make sure, you just said you will be requesting those communications? That's what I heard you say. Is that correct?

MAST: I don't know if I actually said that or not, but I'm happy to say, yes. Yes, I'm certainly happy to request that. I would like to know myself, because, again, the rules are the rules. And we want to see that that's taking place.

[13:20:04]

KEILAR: All right, Congressman Brian Mast, thank you so much, chair of the House Armed Services Committee. We really appreciate your time.

MAST: You're welcome. Take care.

KEILAR: Foreign Affairs. Pardon me. Sorry for that.

Ahead this hour: the Department of Justice employing a new legal maneuver in an attempt to avoid handing over information on deportation flights to a federal judge.

SANCHEZ: And, later, the FBI launching a Tesla task force in hopes of cracking down on attacks against the automaker.

These important stories and many more all coming up right here on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: We're standing by for a federal judge to respond after the Trump administration invoked state secrets privilege to avoid giving him details about those flights of Venezuelan migrants that were sent to El Salvador earlier this month.

SANCHEZ: Remember, a federal judge temporarily halted those flights, saying the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify the deportations of suspected gang members is problematic and concerning.

[13:25:06]

Judge James Boasberg is also considering whether the administration ignored his orders to halt those flights and have them turn around. Right now, we're waiting to see if a federal appeals court is going to uphold or lift that temporary order.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz joins us now live.

And, Katelyn, what can you tell us about this new legal argument and where the case stands?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Gosh, this case has a bunch of different directions that it's moving in.

But the thing that is the latest, after those arguments yesterday, the big legal arguments of how far the court can go, how much the migrants have rights, if they get a stop in court before being removed from the country, that -- put that on the back burner for now. We're going to wait and see what the circuit court, the appeals court does there.

What's happening since that argument is back to the flights themselves. There were indeed Venezuelan migrants put on those flights solely under the Alien Enemies Act and flown out of the country in the middle of this court hearing where the judge is saying, turn the planes around, don't remove people under this.

So the judge has been trying to get to the bottom of the facts. He's been asking questions like, what time did the planes take off with these migrants? When did they leave U.S. airspace? When did the people, the men, leave U.S. custody, go into the Salvadoran prison? How many people were being removed solely under that Alien Enemies Act proclamation from Donald Trump?

And the Justice Department is saying, we don't want to answer you. And the latest is, stop intruding on the executive branch. We claim state secrets, not classified, but secrets, state secrets.

They write: "The information sought by the court is subject to the state secrets privilege because disclosure would pose reasonable danger to national security and foreign affairs." This is an option they have, to claim state secrets. This is really unusual though, because usually they give answers to judges. The Justice Department even says, don't take our word for it. Here's some declarations, foreign statements from Cabinet secretaries, the attorney general, Department of Homeland Security secretary and the secretary of state. We will see what the judge does next, if he wants to sanction them for misleading him.

SANCHEZ: We will see where this goes.

Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much for the latest there.

We have breaking news into CNN, development's in cease-fire talks between Russia and Ukraine.

KEILAR: The U.S. says the two sides are now agreeing to stop using military force in the Black Sea. This is a big development.

CNN's Frederik Pleitgen is with us now from Moscow.

Fred, tell us what you're learning there.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Brianna.

Well, they are agreeing to that, but there do seem to be a couple of caveats in all of that. We are getting statements from the Russians, the Ukrainians, and, of course, we also have those two statements from the United States as well, saying that the Black Sea initiative, which aims to curb the fighting in the Black Sea, that all sides agree to.

That's mostly for the Ukrainians to try and export grain to the world markets. And all sides seem to agree to a couple of things, which is ensuring the safety of navigation in the Black Sea, the non-use of force, and the prevention of the use of commercial vessels for military purposes and the inspection of those vessels.

So those are things that all three countries, Russia, the U.S., and Ukraine, all seem to agree to. And the U.S. also says it wants to facilitate for the Russians to be able to get their grain and other products back to international markets.

But the big caveat in all of this is that the Russians are saying that all of this can only go into effect if sanctions are lifted on the Russian agricultural bank, if they're reconnected to SWIFT and also if sanctions are lifted for the export of Russian fertilizer and the servicing of Russian ships, because obviously they want to go through the Black Sea as well.

So the Russians are saying that all of these things still do need to be worked out. So it's unclear when all of this is actually going to go into force. Nevertheless, the Russians also say that the U.S. and Russia agree that a long-term peace agreement for Russia and Ukraine is needed, guys.

SANCHEZ: Yes, important to focus on the details there. Fred Pleitgen from Moscow, thank you so much.

Coming up: As attacks on Tesla vehicles and facilities escalate across the United States, the FBI is launching a task force to take on these acts of violence.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)