Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Consumer Confidence Plummets to Lowest Level Since January 2021; Top Intel Officials Testify Amid Fallout Over War Plan Group Chat; Trump Administration Revokes Immigration Program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired March 25, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:11]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Show us the messages, lawmakers pushing some of the nation's top Intel officials to release the text of war plans that were accidentally sent to a journalist.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Plus, economic confidence down, pessimism way up, a new report showing Americans expect higher inflation and a recession. And false claims with very real implications, this conspiracy theory claiming the government is controlling the weather or people's minds by spraying chemicals out of planes is now the basis for bills in several states. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

KEILAR: Right now, we are watching the fallout from an extraordinary hearing on Capitol Hill. Senate Democrats grilling the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe a day after The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg broke a story saying he was accidentally included in a Signal group chat where there were discussions about military strikes in Yemen, a Signal chat that these two were on.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. Initially, Gabbard declined to say whether she was actually involved in the chat, but soon after gave up that attempt. Both she and Ratcliffe denied that there was any classified information in the chat though. They repeatedly downplayed and denied what was reported by Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic. It led to this contentious exchange between the CIA Director and Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET, (D-CO); I'm shocked to find him on a thread that he's reading in the parking lot of a grocery store in Washington, D.C. and your testimony as the Director of the CIA is that it's totally appropriate.

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: No.

BENNET: Is it appropriate?

RATCLIFFE: No.

BENNET: That the president --

RATCLIFFE: That is not what I --

BENNET: OK, go ahead.

RATCLIFFE: When did I say it was -- When did I use the word appropriate?

BENNET: Well, go ahead, please.

RATCLIFFE: Well, I didn't.

BENNET: That everybody in America there is nothing to see here --

RATCLIFFE: So clearly, Senator --

BENNET: -- is what your testimony is.

RATCLIFFE: No, I never said that.

BENNET: This is just a normal day at the CIA where we chat about this kind of stuff over Signal. In fact, it's so normal that the last administration left it here for us. That's your testimony.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: CNN's Jeff Zeleny is live force at the White House, and CNN's Katie Bo Lillis also joins us. Jeff, first to you, what are you learning from the White House? How are they receiving what went down at this hearing?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, throughout the day, the president and the White House have been trying to downplay the entire incident and diminish the actual information that was discussed on that group chat. Basically, the president although acknowledging, he said that Mike Waltz, the National Security Adviser who added Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic editor, to that conversation, he said that he learned a lesson. The president also went on to say it was the only glitch in the first two months of this administration.

So the president acknowledging a bit of wrongdoing there, but moving forward, diminishing The Atlantic Magazine and its reporting. Of course, he has had a contentious relationship with The Atlantic Magazine over his time in office here. But the White House beyond that, really trying to change the subject. And I'm told now that we are going to see the president later this hour. He'll be meeting with some of his ambassador nominees here at the White House.

That would be the first opportunity for the President to speak about it, at least on this day, after the hearing. We shall see if he addresses it or if he answers questions about it. But the White House is trying to downplay the entire incident, saying there's nothing to see here. But one thing I have noticed as well, talking to a variety of -- of -- a variety of officials, the White House has not -- the president has not specifically mentioned what he thinks of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's role in this.

At that hearing, it was quite clear that both Tulsi Gabbard and the -- and John Radcliffe were essentially saying you should ask the defense secretary if this information was classified. The White House and the president have not mentioned him at all yet. So I do expect that that is one more question that needs to be filled in, given the fact that the information, the war plans were being shared by him.

SANCHEZ: It is striking Katie Bo Lillis that during this hearing, both Ratcliffe and Gabbard deferred to Hegseth on a number of questions, suggesting that he was in charge of whether or not some of the information that was shared was actually classified. What can you tell us?

KATIE BO LILLIS, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Now, Boris, that's exactly right. There was this really fascinating development that dynamic rather, that kind of developed over the course of this hearing. In the very beginning, they both came out and very firmly said, no, there was no classified information that was contained in this thread. But of course, under questioning from Democrats, really by the end of the hearing, they were saying, well, there was no information that was owned by either of our agencies that was classified, that was shared in here. But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is the classification authority for any DOD data and you'll have to talk to him essentially.

[14:05:00]

Look, it's really important to remember here that if Hegseth had not reportedly shared the details, the operational planning details for these strikes in Yemen, according to The Atlantic, things like the targets themselves, the timing, the sequencing, information that is always extremely classified because of the potential risk to U.S. service members if that information were to get out prematurely, if he had not done that, we wouldn't be talking about this as a national security story. We'd be talking about this as a politics story. We'd be talking about it as a foreign policy story.

But because of that element, this is now a conversation about whether or not classified information may have been shared on an unsecure non- government platform that is not approved for classified info. So, take a listen to the way Ratcliffe kind of tried to walk this line.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RATCLIFFE: NO, that's not correct. So Senator, what I've related is that, that any information that was related from my perspective or that I observed from the intelligence perspective was not classified information. With respect to the assertions and the allegations that there was strike packages or targeting information or things that relate to DOD, as I've pointed out, the Secretary of Defense is the original classification authority for determining whether something is classified or not. And as I've understood from media reports, the Secretary of Defense has said the information was not classified.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BO LILLIS: It's just -- it's a very subtle arm's length-ing of the Defense Secretary and of the responsibility for this episode.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Yeah, certainly is. Katie Bo Lillis, Jeff Zeleny, thank you so much to both of you. And for more on today's hearing and the growing group chat fallout, let's talk with President Trump's Former National Security Advisor John Bolton. I should note, sir, you have already blasted these officials for using Signal. You say it's not as secure as secure government telecommunications and that we shouldn't believe folks who are trying to make us think that. So what is your reaction to the CIA director defending the use of Signal by testifying this morning? That Signal was loaded onto a CIA computer. It was, "Permissible to use to communicate and coordinate for work purposes, provided that any decisions that are made are also recorded through formal channels?"

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Well, I'd like to know who put it on his computer and when and why didn't they have another review? We've seen reports just a few days before this group was set up, the Department of Defense sent a memo around saying Signal was very vulnerable. I think the key point here is the United States government over decades, has spent billions of dollars to create the world's most secure telecommunications capabilities. And why these senior officials, virtually all of whom are 24/7 able to get onto a secure phone, a secure video, a secure computer, why they would shift off of that for any reason to any commercial system?

That's the first -- that's the original sin. Everything else after that just makes things worse. But why anybody would use Signal for any purpose I can't understand. And if the argument is, well, they did it in the Biden administration; I mean that's practically a recommendation not to do it. They just accept everything Joe Biden's administration did. That's quite an argument.

KEILAR: Yeah. They don't like many things that Joe Biden's administration did. That's very clear. OK, so that's the original sin, but then the one that is causing a lot of the fallout here is Secretary Hegseth putting all of these operational details into the group chat. Should Jeffrey Goldberg, the reporter who was inadvertently added to the group chat and is privy to these details, should he publish them? He had refrained from printing them because of security reasons. But now, we have administration officials minimizing those details being on this platform. Should he publish them?

BOLTON: Well, Tulsi Gabbard at least testified there was no classified information in the chain. So, that should be a defense in court if the Justice Department were to try and prosecute Goldberg, they could ask for the information back. I think they know that it's classified. And I think frankly, some of the information published in The Atlantic article was classified, for example, the argument it's made by several people that Europeans and Egypt, I think were included, are going to have to pay for the outcome of the operation against the Houthis in Yemen to clear the Red Sea maritime passage.

Now, I'll guarantee when they read that in European capitals, in Cairo today, they said, what? So I think it's like many instances of classification, that would be classified until we actually told the governments or made it public.

[14:10:00]

But when it's made public before we're prepared to do it, I think that almost certainly was classified in and of itself. The whole point of staying in the government-approved secure channels is you can say anything you want. You can say -- you can talk about today's newspapers, you can talk about top secret code word information. You can talk about anything in between. You don't worry about it. Once you're on Signal, once you're on any non-governmental, non-secured channel, you're at risk of saying something if you're not careful.

And what I think is additionally worthy of investigation here is, was this the first rodeo? Was this the first Signal app group chat in the national security space? You can't tell from the article. I have a feeling it may not have been. And I think that makes it potentially even more serious.

KEILAR: There is some hair splitting going on over what is classified and under what authority or under what agency. Let's listen to what Tulsi Gabbard said about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, UNITED STATES DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Senator, I can attest to the fact that there were no classified or intelligence equities that were included in that chat group at any time. And I defer --

SEN. ANGUS KING, (I-ME): So the attack sequencing and timing and weapons and targets, you don't consider to -- should have been classified or were classified?

GABBARD: I defer to the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council on that question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Now, to be clear, Gabbard and Ratcliffe seemed to be leaning on this distinction that they say this was not intelligence community classified information. Ratcliffe went on to say the Secretary of Defense is the original classification authority for the DOD and deciding what would be classified information. We've heard him talk to the press and say there wasn't classified information, which I guess would be a Jeffrey Goldberg defense in court. But what is your read there on what Gabbard and Ratcliffe are doing kind of splitting those hairs?

BOLTON: Well, they're trying to cover their posteriors. I think they're very worried. I think they know there was classified information in that chat. This business about who has original classification authority is important when things are classified. But once somebody classifies it, then it's classified. And it doesn't matter whether it was Tom, Dick or Harry.

So I think what they've said, at least in earlier parts of their testimony though, remember, this is a statement to Congress. I don't know whether they were sworn in or not, but under Title 18, the U.S. Code Section 1001, a false statement to a government official, including committees of Congress can be -- constitute perjury. So I think they're very nervous and they are trying to split hairs in a sense and say, well, we don't know what the stuff that Hegseth sent out was.

And I think Hegseth's response when he was first told about this is the kind of denial that you see from Donald Trump right on through, nothing to see here. Then there is no answer to the point. Well, if it's not classified, why don't you just publish it?

KEILAR: And so really quickly before I let you go, they were asked questions about the specifics of those operational details, and that's when we started hearing the, I don't recall or the very careful answers. They said, I do not recall, these were we should remind people texts that were exchanged, I think 10 to 12 days ago, like within the last two weeks. Is that believable to you, all of those 'I do not recalls?'

BOLTON: From the people saying, I don't recall at that testimony, I'm not at all surprised. Look, I think the main thing here, these people are not going to get in any trouble.

KEILAR: Yeah.

BOLTON: They're not going to be disciplined. They're not going to be investigated by the Justice Department unless and until Donald Trump feels some heat for it, and he doesn't feel any yet.

KEILAR: Ambassador Bolton, thanks so much for being with us.

BOLTON: Thanks for having me.

KEILAR: Still ahead, the Trump administration trying a new legal argument to resist a judge's order over deportation flights to El Salvador.

SANCHEZ: Plus, why is the alleged CEO killer Luigi Mangione asking to keep a laptop in his jail cell, and a traffic stop leading to the rescue of a missing six-year-old girl. That story and much more in just a few minutes on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:18:30]

SANCHEZ: We are continuing to monitor the backlash of that security lapse that saw top White House and national security officials discussing military plans, all while a journalist was inadvertently added to their Signal group chat. Let's discuss with Republican Congresswoman Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida. She serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Congresswoman, thank you so much for being with us. I wonder why you think --

REP. MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, (R-FL) FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Of course, (inaudible) with you, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Of course. I wonder why you think senior officials were discussing the details of this operation in which U.S. service members are going into enemy airspace outside of classified government systems.

SALAZAR: Well, it was a mistake. Like I said before, it was a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, but I think that these two, Mike Waltz, National Security Advisor, who served with me here on the floor and who's a patriot and who's the person for the job, and Hegseth, another patriot and another soldier. We should let them understand that they made a mistake, but they need to go forward.

The Houthis operation was successful and the fact that, of course, they made a mistake by putting a reporter in that Signal thread was definitely a mistake. But, everyone makes one and which is -- you need to -- I think that we need to judge them on their performance, what they've done up to now, which has been pretty good. Remember, they're just starting in the job.

[14:20:00]

This game just started. Let's see how they do in the next two years, and then we can judge them, but not because of one mistake that they put a reporter, maybe they made a mistake and they put that (inaudible).

SANCHEZ: Sure.

SALAZAR: Listen, those who do not have any sins, they can throw the first stone.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, I wonder what in your eyes the mistake is specifically, you alluded to Jeffrey Goldberg being on that chat as a mistake. I wonder if you think using Signal altogether to discuss this kind of operation is a mistake?

SALAZAR: Well, I use Signal myself. I cannot tell you exactly what would be the right communication vehicle. If they decided to use Signal, they know better. But all I'm saying is that if the reporter would've not been mistakenly in that group of people chatting back and forth, we would've never known. So, I don't know the -- I don't have the answer to that. I'm just concentrating on that the wrong person was put in the wrong thread.

SANCHEZ: Sure. Sure. I do wonder generally though, if there are very reputable experts, including Republican Congress people, saying that foreign adversaries can access the content of conversations on Signal. Whether you would find it appropriate to have those conversations on this app as opposed to government systems, and whether you think the whole incident should be investigated?

SALAZAR: That is up to the White House to decide if they want to investigate or not. I think that we have a lot more other issues that we need to deal with. I repeat, it was a mistake. I am sure that Mike Waltz is very much regretful of what happened, the same thing with secretary of defense. But we should not hone in on this issue. I'm sure they learned from what happened and I'm sure they're going to be using other mechanisms.

It's not the first time that this happens and I'm sure it's not going to be the last. What we need to concentrate is to do it better next time. I use Signal to communicate with people who are in very compromised situations, and it has been pretty good so far. So, Signal, I have nothing to --

SANCHEZ: I understand that, Congresswoman.

SALAZAR: I have nothing to say. But it's, I think that we should talk about the 220A and what's happening with immigration in this country, which is even more important.

SANCHEZ: We will get to that.

SALAZAR: OK.

SANCHEZ: We will get to that, Congresswoman. I do --

SALAZAR: OK.

SANCHEZ: I do wonder though, because there are congressional committees that could lead investigations into this sort of thing. I imagine that you have questions.

SALAZAR: I'm fine.

SANCHEZ: Would you support them?

SALAZAR: (Inaudible) the committee, of course. If the committee, the committee that has jurisdiction over this issue considers that it's important to investigate what happened and reprimand, even if these are Republican actors, go ahead. Of course, it works for everybody. That's why we're here. We are a bipartisan body.

SANCHEZ: If the committee decides that you're saying that they should, but I wonder if you think, if you would lend your voice to support a committee on Capitol Hill looking into these allegations that there was classified material shared in the way that it shouldn't have been?

SALAZAR: I would -- I would invest -- no, I would invest that time and energy -- I would leave that for the DOD and for the national security advisor team to determine. I don't think that in Congress, we should be investigating and spending any time, energy, or money on this issue. Something bigger that would've had other consequences, then I would say yes. I'm not going to tell you yes when I mean no.

SANCHEZ: You make the case that there are other more important issues. But I do wonder if you don't think that a secretary of defense or the advisor of the national security council potentially revealing sensitive information to a journalist constitutes a national security risk.

SALAZAR: I don't say (ph) it.

SANCHEZ: It could be by mistake.

SALAZAR: Of course.

SANCHEZ: But it's still put potentially putting Americans lives at risk. If it wasn't Jeffrey Goldberg -- if it wasn't Jeffrey Goldberg, if it had been someone else, if it had been someone else?

SALAZAR: Hey, we have been five minutes in this, your hit is around seven or eight. I would like to spend the rest of the time of this hit talking about other things that are a little bit more consequential for the country.

SANCHEZ: Congresswoman, I imagine that the lives of service members are certainly consequential and whether they were put at risk by secretaries --

SALAZAR: But in this case --

SANCHEZ: -- of defense and the national security advisor, Congresswoman?

SALAZAR: Boris, in this case, thank God Almighty that the operation was highly successful and we were able to go after the Houthis who happen to be pretty bad people because they're being backed by even worse people, which are the Iranians. So why don't we concentrate on that? We recognize that it was a mistake. I'm sure that they know it was a mistake. They're going to take further precautions next time. Why don't we talk about immigration?

SANCHEZ: We will. We will. Is that sufficient accountability to you to recognize that someone made a mistake and moving on? Because I don't see that same standard being held when other people have made --

SALAZAR: Boris, I gave me the soundbite already.

[14:25:00]

I gave you the soundbite already. I just told you.

SANCHEZ: Congresswoman, respectfully, I'm after a specific answer.

SALAZAR: OK.

SANCHEZ: And that is whether you think that sufficient accountability --

SALAZAR: OK. The answer, I just gave it you.

SANCHEZ: -- is forgiving someone when they make one mistake as you put it? Is that sufficient? Is that the standard that you hold these cabinet members to?

SALAZAR: I am telling you that they recognize what happened. I'm sure that they're going to take measures for next time this not to happen. These are patriots. They're just starting in the job. These are people that know what they're doing. They are soldiers. They have been in the military. And I am sure that Mike Waltz, who is highly respected and highly responsible, is looking at every single corner to make sure that this will not happen to him again.

I know Waltz very well. He's a personal friend of mine. I know he is ready for the job. He's going to do a fantastic job from now on. I am sure that this is not going to happen to the guy ever again.

SANCHEZ: Congresswoman, moving to the conversation that we originally reached out to you to have.

SALAZAR: Thank you. Yes.

SANCHEZ: I imagine it, it may be a relief for you not to face questions about this Signal conversation. The Miami Herald is reporting that there have been some significant policy shifts on immigration. A number of I220A holders, mostly Cuban migrants, were detained.

SALAZAR: Yes.

SANCHEZ: -- while they were attending their scheduled immigration appointments. To this point, none of them are suspected criminals or gang members.

SALAZAR: Yes.

SANCHEZ: I've read that a majority of them are women, many of them mothers.

SALAZAR: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Should they be deported?

SALAZAR: Of course not. And I called myself with the same passion that you saw me answering your previous question. I called homeland security. I spoke with the Kristi -- Secretary Noem's deputies and I said to them, look, the last four years have been a -- has been a very complicated experience for this country. President Biden allowed for millions and millions of people to come in, among them Cubans.

The Cubans received something called the I220A, which is something that I don't understand why that is. It's a piece of paper with a number that means nothing. We got to remember that the Cubans have something called the Cuban Adjustment Act, which makes them privileged in the eyes of immigration. So all I'm saying to the Trump administration, to my president and to my secretary of homeland security, is allow for the Cubans to continue the course.

Most of them have asked for asylum. Most Cubans cannot return to Havana, as you know very well. Most Venezuelans cannot go back to Caracas or the Nicaraguans back to Daniel Ortega. We're talking about rough states. We're talking about dictators. We're talking about tyrants. We're talking about very bad places.

So sending them back is not going to be possible. So do not detain them. Allow for the 220A to continue and due process, and let them face the judge, and then the judge will determine what they're going to do with them, like the good American way of life.

SANCHEZ: As you pointed out, Congresswoman, they can't go back to Nicaragua, Venezuela, or Cuba, in part because they would be locked up for --

SALAZAR: Yes.

SANCHEZ: -- possibly the rest of their lives.

SALAZAR: Yes.

SANCHEZ: I wonder, if they are deported, what message would the Trump administration be sending communities that largely supported and elected this president and yourself?

SALAZAR: Well, we have to remember that the President promised that he was going to be sending back the illegals who are criminals, that they started with Tren de Aragua. They are doing that. And I understand that this could be Biden migrants, people who came in during the Biden administration. We also have to put all the responsibility on the previous administration because, as I said, they gave them a piece of paper that is worth nothing, number one.

The 220A does not allow them to join the path to citizenship that Cuban Adjustment Act allows. I had this conversation with Secretary Mayorkas during four years because, as I said, I'm one of the most bipartisan members of Congress, so everyone has their responsibility.

What's happening right now is that Trump and his administration is just cleaning the potholes that Biden left on the road because it's highly irresponsible to allow people to come to the United States from those three countries and say, you know, you're going to be here only for two years. Yeah, only for two years, don't you worry, but come in right now because I don't need you to become a problem for me. And then what happens now? These people don't have a way out.

So I'm saying to the Trump administration, I know that you're paying for Biden's mistakes, but let's do this. Let's be the American way of life and allow them to continue the process in the courts and have a judge determine what's going to happen with them, which is what happens with immigration, with asylum cases.

SANCHEZ: Congresswoman Maria Elvira Salazar, we have to leave the conversation there. Always appreciate you joining us and sharing (inaudible) with you.

SALAZAR: Invite me --