Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
FBI Launches Task Force Targeting Anti-Tesla "Domestic Terrorism; Europe Reacts To Trump Cabinet Members' Signal Group Chat; U.S. Law Firms Deciding How To Respond As Trump Targets Them. Aired 1:30-2p ET
Aired March 25, 2025 - 13:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:33:34]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The FBI is launching a new task force after this spate of violence that we have seen against Elon Musk's Tesla brand. The bureau is looking to crack down on attacks, like these ones that you see here.
Some of the more serious incidents involving Tesla vehicles, charging stations as well, buildings being set on fire, even shot at.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yesterday, officials in Austin, Texas, say they removed incendiary devices from a Tesla dealership.
Both attorney general Pam Bondi and FBI director Kash Patel call these acts "domestic terrorism."
Let's get some perspective from CNN senior law enforcement analyst, Andrew McCabe, who served as deputy director of the FBI.
Andrew, thanks so much for being with us.
Do you agree with that characterization that these are acts of domestic terrorism because the Tesla brand has now been politicized?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I think it's highly likely, Boris.
And the reason I say that is because, if you look at the definition of domestic terrorism, which is defined in U.S. Federal Code, 2331, Part Five, it's basically a violent felony committed in the United States with one of three possible intents.
And those are an intent to coerce a population or, most importantly, an intent to affect the conduct of government through coercion or intimidation, or with the use of a -- with mass destruction.
[13:35:57]
And so I think these acts, if the government has solid evidence of the intent of the attackers, which -- which we can infer that they're angry at Mr. Musk for his political activity. But they're going to actually -- actually need evidence to prove that, then -- then it does fit, I think, pretty squarely within the definition of domestic terrorism.
KEILAR: It's clearly important for us to understand, just to -- to wrap our heads around and understand what is happening here, Andy.
But can you talk a little bit about how a person would be charged? Because just for reference, even if you look at, say, like, a Timothy McVeigh, he was not charged with domestic terrorism.
So how would that work with -- if they find perpetrators and they charge them, how are they actually doing that?
MCCABE: Yes. So this is the really fascinating thing. Because we get bound up in -- in every time there's some sort of an attack where we spent a lot of time talking about whether or not it's terrorism.
In the case of domestic terrorism, even though we have this very specific definition laid out in the statute, there's actually no criminal penalty for it.
So you cannot be convicted of a crime of domestic terrorism because there essentially isn't one. If you are involved in domestic terrorist activity, what the government has to do is convict you for an underlying substantive offense.
At the federal level, like in this case, that could be something like using a weapon of mass destruction, which these incendiary devices would likely qualify as -- as weapons of mass destruction.
You could also use state criminal law. You could charge people with acts like vandalism or arson or things like that. But there is no federal crime of domestic terrorism.
Many counterterrorism professionals, like myself, believe that this is a major flaw in our federal criminal code. But nevertheless, that's -- that's where we are on the legal side of what we're seeing here.
SANCHEZ: What do you make of the FBIs decision to call for this task force? What do you think they might accomplish?
MCCABE: Well, Boris, it's -- it's not an uncommon thing for the FBI to do.
If they're confronted with a new and sort of emerging threat, they very, very frequently will pull together a task force of agents in the field offices that are involved, plus folks at headquarters who can kind of oversee the effort and really focus those people exclusively on this issue.
They'll try to disrupt it with things like arrests and to basically mitigate this threat. And then that gives them some time to decide if they need to move resources to address this sort of thing permanently.
The question of whether they need to is a really interesting one, though, because they shouldn't need to, right? There is a long established domestic terrorism section and program within the FBI that was built to do exactly this.
We saw a very similar activity in the 1980s and '90s around things like environmental extremists and animal rights extremists, same sort of vandalism approach to stopping that activity. And that was something that the domestic terrorism program addressed very effectively.
So this raises questions for me about, why isn't the current state of the bureaus domestic -- domestic terrorism investigators good enough to handle this?
And could it be because they have recently been distracted and tasked with engaging in immigration activity?
So many of us, when we saw that the FBI was relying on its Joint Terrorism Task Forces to help out ICE operations on immigration, we all raised the concern that, hey, this is not a good idea for protecting the country against terrorism.
We don't want our terrorism forces to be something doing something other than terrorism. So if they need a task force now to get this done, that could be an indication that they're spreading their terrorism resources too thin.
KEILAR: Yes, very important questions you're raising there. And it's so alarming what we're seeing here at these dealerships and to these cars.
Andrew McCabe, thank you so much thanks.
MCCABE: Thanks.
[13:39:02]
Relations on the rocks. European leaders reacting to those leaked text Signal messages from top U.S. national security officials criticizing their countries and allegedly sharing sensitive intelligence. We'll have that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: The Trump administrations leak of military plans over the Signal app is having repercussions around the world. And that includes Europe, where the White House routinely shares intelligence and tactical information with U.S. allies.
KEILAR: In this group, chat on Signal, Vice President J.D. Vance laments bailing out Europe again. He says he hates it.
While Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth chimes in, calling Europe "pathetic freeloaders, European freeloaders" -- it's all caps -- "pathetic," he says.
And that is leading some in Europe to reassess their relationship with the U.S.
CNN's Max Foster joins us live from London.
That relationship hasn't been fantastic, I think we could say of late, Max. What are we hearing from leaders on this scandal?
MAX FOSTER, CNN ANCHOR & CORRESPONDENT: Well, obviously, the -- the freeloading language has been -- has caused some offense. It's not very diplomatic language.
But there's also a ring of truth to it. I think that's the reality here. I think there's been an acceptance throughout this process, whatever you think of it.
But Europe has had to realize that it has relied too much on U.S. defense and it's let its own defenses go down as a result.
I think that one issue Europe has, particularly here in the U.K., is the intelligence it supplies to America, which is indispensable in many American operations, including just U.S. operations.
[13:44:58]
And the U.K. is particularly concerned about that because of its involvement in the Five Eyes initiative. So there's pretty much a full access to U.K. intelligence from the U.S. intelligence services.
So that is something that Europe does definitely contribute to this relationship.
But of course, if you're sharing intelligence, you're going to be concerned that it leaks. And that's really what has caused the concern here that Signal's being used. It's not seen as a fully secure official app.
And Keir Starmer said it, for example, today, saying, "These sorts of intelligence need to be communicated across appropriate security systems." So clearly judging Signal as not appropriate.
The opposition leader, one of the opposition leaders, Ed Davey, saying, "J.D. Vance and his mates clearly aren't fit to run a group chat, let alone the world's strongest military force. It has to make our security services nervous about the intelligence that we're sharing with them."
And then I think the former Belgian prime minister really speaks to the much bigger point here when he put on X, "another wake up call for a real European defense. When will E.U. leaders act?"
Europe has to step into this void in its defenses that America used to be filling.
SANCHEZ: Max Foster, live for us in London, thanks so much for the update.
Still to come, taking a stand. As the White House increases the pressure on law firms, one attorney decided it was time to speak out and quit her job in protest. She's on with us live on CNN NEWS CENTRAL in just moments.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:51:01]
SANCHEZ: Some of the nation's biggest law firms are at a crossroads as President Donald Trump targets them with potentially crippling executive orders. One of the most prominent firms, Paul, Weiss, responded by making a deal with the president.
The concessions includes abandoning its diversity policies and doing $40 million worth of pro bono work on causes the president supports. In return, Trump rescinded his executive order that suspended the firms security clearances.
Another prominent firm, Perkins Coie, decided to mount a defense against the presidents order, which removes security clearances from the firm's lawyers, essentially making them ineligible to represent clients in sensitive cases.
We're joined now by attorney, Rachel Cohen. She resigned from her law firm in protest over big law not standing up to the president.
Rachel, thank you so much for being with us.
Why do you think the administration is revoking these security clearances, targeting these law firms?
RACHEL COHEN, ATTORNEY QUIT LAW FIRM OVER CONCERNS OF TRUMP PRESSURE: I think that it's a -- one prong in a multi-pronged attack on the judiciary broadly. And I think that there's an attack on the judiciary broadly, because the administration is trying to stage a coup.
SANCHEZ: How is that?
COHEN: We have one branch of government that's able to check Donald Trump in his current second term. Early on in his administration, he's been blanketing shock-and-awe executive orders, and the only real pathway to preventing that, giving everyone a second to breathe is the judiciary.
And Donald Trump has been launching attacks on judges and also ignoring judges orders. We just saw him deport 200 people, human beings, over a judge's order.
SANCHEZ: But --
COHEN: We need lawyers to bring the cases. He can't just attack judges. And so he's also targeting large corporate law firms as a seat of legal power in this country.
SANCHEZ: His administration has argued that they did not violate the judge's orders. That is, in the process of being adjudicated now.
What do you see as the impact of this deal between Paul, Weiss, the firm, and the Trump administration?
COHEN: I think it is devastating for legal resistance in this country, to remember that the Trump administration, while it's being extremely strategic here, doesn't have very many good attorneys.
And giving $40 million of free legal services from one of the -- the best law firms in the world to advance Trump administration aims not only kneecaps ability to resist him, because these attorneys are then conflicted out of taking certain cases that challenge the Trump administration.
But it provides him with a much needed cadre of really effective attorneys, which I think right now he's sorely lacking.
SANCHEZ: The argument from the firm, the leadership at Paul, Weiss was that without some kind of deal like this, they would have been destroyed. Do you think they had a choice?
COHEN: I think that we see they have a choice in Perkins Coie and the way that they've chosen to handle this.
And I also know that Paul, Weiss had over $2, I believe, billion in revenue last year.
And if they don't think that they can effectively litigate against an executive order that is broadly agreed to be unconstitutional, then perhaps I rescind what I said about them being extremely effective litigators.
SANCHEZ: I wonder if you think other firms might change their behavior as a result of this. If you think perhaps your resignation might change the dynamic.
COHEN: I'm hoping that my resignation changes the dynamic. And I think we've at least seen that we now are able to get someone to talk about it on the news, because that has been a huge issue, that there are people unwilling to speak on the record about this.
And I engaged in a lot of organizing inside my firm and across the industry broadly to try to coordinate some type of effective industry response to this all-out attack. And I was unable to do that, and so needed to kind of change the narrative a little bit more.
[13:54:57]
So we've seen an escalation by an individual, but on behalf of a much broader movement that I think is occurring across the industry.
And I'm hopeful that as we continue to see that play out -- I don't expect other people to quit their jobs. They're not positioned the same way I am.
But I'm hoping that associates, for example, will refuse to recruit or interview on behalf of firms that will not protect their associates and the rule of law.
SANCHEZ: Rachel Cohen, we appreciate you sharing your story with us. Thanks for coming on.
COHEN: Thanks so much for having me, Boris.
SANCHEZ: So there are a lot of worries weighing on the minds of Americans, from inflation to fears over a recession. Those have led to another alarming report on the economy. We'll discuss the details next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
