Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

White House Under Fire Over Signal Chat Leak; Interview With Rep. Keith Self (R-TX). Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired March 26, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

MOLLY BALL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": So I think it's fair to say that Senator Wicker has a fair number of concerns with Pete Hegseth. And he's got some clout here. He's going to demand those answers.

MANU RAJU, CNN HOST: Yes, and it's interesting to see Johnson's response and John Thune's response, the two Republican leaders not on the same page in the aftermath of this controversy.

All right, great discussion.

Guys, there's so much more news. Thank you for joining INSIDE POLITICS.

"CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We start this hour with breaking news into CNN.

"The Atlantic" says it has the receipts, and now you can judge for yourself, today, the publication releasing messages from that security scandal embroiling the Trump administration, detailing highly sensitive attack plans that top White House officials discussed in a group chat with a journalist who was mistakenly added to their text thread.

The messages reveal the timing of upcoming strikes in Yemen, targets, weapons and even weather reports. Sources tell CNN the information was highly classified, even though the Trump administration insists that it was not.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: And we're going to hear directly from the White House any moment now.

Meantime, all of this, of course, is unfolding as the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA chief John Ratcliffe testify again today before lawmakers discussing global security threats.

Instead, though, they're facing another barrage of questions from Democrats about the security breach they themselves were involved in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Director Gabbard, you said no classified information was included in the Signal chat, correct?

TULSI GABBARD, U.S. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: That's correct.

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. I didn't transfer any classified information. And at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: CNN's Alex Marquardt joining us now.

So they really want to focus on the mission, but there are questions about how we even got to the point in the information. What more did we learn in what was published today?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: They want to focus on the mission and how well it went, despite the risks that could have happened here. They want to focus on the definitions of classified. They are arguing that nothing in here was classified. You hear Ratcliffe saying, insisting that what he put in the chat was not classified.

And they want to quibble about the definition of war plans. They are insisting that what has been revealed in shocking detail about what was going to happen and what did happen on March 15 on these strikes against the Houthis, that that was not a war plan, and that in fact this detail does not include classified information.

We have now heard from Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, and I want to read part of his latest statement.

He says: "So let me get this straight. 'The Atlantic' released the so- called war plans and those plans include no names, no targets, no locations, no units, no routes, no sources, no methods, and no classified information."

He says: "Those are some really shitty war plans. And this only proves one thing, that Jeff Goldberg has never seen a war plan or an attack plan."

It does go on, but suffice to say that whether these are war plans or not, they are without question a lot of details about an attack that was coming, about strikes, about an operation that was in the works.

When it comes to methods, for example, he does talk about the methods that are going to be used. He talks about the F-18s that are going to be launched at 12:15 Eastern time. That's the first strike package. He then speaks directly about how -- when the bombs will start to fall.

"This is when the first bombs will definitely drop, he says. "Will happen at 2:15." That is in all caps.

And then there is some really interesting intelligence from Mike Waltz, a national security adviser, following these strikes. And he talks about how they took out the top missile guy, as he called him, that: "We had positive I.D. of him walking into his girlfriend's building, and now it's collapsed."

Well, how did they have that intelligence about the fact that they took this guy out? Certainly, it was through classified methods. So, today, what we heard, guys, was continued pushback from the director of national intelligence, from the CIA director that nothing in here was in fact classified.

But from all the officials, many of the officials we have spoken with on Capitol Hill, at the Pentagon, former officials, experts, everyone points to the fact that this was indeed classified information. We did see some effort by Director Gabbard to walk back some of her statements yesterday.

She was asked then whether operational issues were not part of the conversation. She said, correct, they were not part of the conversation. We now see they in fact were, and she chalked that up to her bad recollection.

SANCHEZ: She essentially said that she wasn't focused on those details in the message, which is fascinating, given that she's the director of national intelligence.

MARQUARDT: And, perhaps most importantly, she is now -- she was saying the onus is on Pete Hegseth to explain it, because he was the one who was putting this information out and he has the classification authority for that information.

[13:05:04]

SANCHEZ: Alex Marquardt, thank you so much for the update there.

Let's go live to CNN's Kaitlan Collins, who's in the White House press Briefing Room awaiting this briefing to get under way.

Walk us through the different ways in which the administration is responding to these stunning new developments, because it seems they're partaking in an effort to put multiple theories out there as to how this transpired.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Yes, Boris, and I should note the White House had been bracing for Jeffrey Goldberg to release the rest of these messages after they started denying yesterday that there was any classified information contained in them, an assertion that was repeated by the president, I should note, yesterday when we were inside the Cabinet Room with him as he was maintaining that.

He had been told that, obviously, by his aides. We're waiting for Karoline Leavitt to come out now. And we have seen them out on the defensive again today since Jeffrey Goldberg released the rest of these messages, including what he said he believed was too sensitive and too confidential to release the first time, when they first revealed that he had been inadvertently added to this group chat.

And so Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary that we're about to hear from in the first press briefing this week, I should note, has been defending the defense secretary so far on Twitter this morning, talking about really what was in that headline when this article first came out calling it war plans.

They have been arguing ever since Defense Secretary Hegseth landed in Hawaii that these were not in fact war plans. They say the messages reveal that. Obviously, we have seen Republican lawmakers even on Capitol Hill raising questions about that and saying that some of them do believe that this is classified information.

And so really the question is what comes down to the president himself. As you heard, he did an interview earlier today. He was saying that he believed it was a staffer from the National Security Council who initially added this reporter to this message about these sensitive plans that they were discussing.

Mike Waltz himself, the national security adviser, acknowledged last night that he was the one who added and said he took full responsibility for that, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Kaitlan Collins live for us in the press Briefing Room.

We will, of course, monitor remarks from the press secretary and bring you those developments as they happen.

Let's expand the conversation now with Republican Congressman Keith Self of Texas. He sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Congressman, thank you so much for coming with us today.

So you have seen the messages. These were operational plans detailing specific aircraft and weapons, along with a timetable for what is supposed to be a surprise attack. If that information got in the wrong hands, would the operation and the lives of U.S. service members have been put at risk?

REP. KEITH SELF (R-TX): Look, I have been in on these discussions in the NSC, in the White House Situation Room when I was in the Pentagon in the black programs.

This is exactly what should have happened. Mike Waltz has taken responsibility for this. They have called it a glitch. I think that's exactly what it is. But when you ask me about classified information, that means weapons loads. That means time on target. That means routes. That means target location.

None of that was in here. I have read it three times to make sure. And Mike Waltz was very careful early in this chain to say, you will get the classified information over the high side. What the high side means is the government classified systems would provide all of the classified details that they needed.

SANCHEZ: So, Congressman, your assertion is that, if this information, what is in these text messages, had gotten into the hands of the Houthi rebels in Yemen, they would not have been able to attack U.S. service members entering their airspace at these designated times or at the very least avoided them?

SELF: I think you are underestimating the U.S. military. Yes, I believe that the U.S. military would have had just as successful operation against the Houthis as was accomplished with this high-level discussion.

Look, this is exactly what I want to happen. I want our highest-level people to make the determination to have this discussion, to have this debate before they send young Americans in harm's way to go kill people. This is exactly what the American people expect of our defense and our intelligence officials to do.

SANCHEZ: I guess, to be more specific about my question -- and in no way do I underestimate the capacity of our Armed Services.

More so, I question whether a conversation like this happening over an app that the Pentagon itself reportedly warned people not to use could potentially help our adversaries in a very sensitive moment. Your assertion is that this conversation over Signal, had it gotten into the wrong hands, would not have put U.S. service members at risk?

SELF: All you have is takeoffs of F-18s. There's no routes. There's no targets. It would not have provided enough information for the Houthis to be ready for us. They could have generally been ready.

But, again, you're underestimating the power of the United States military. They would have accomplished this mission regardless. Now, a glitch, I will give you that. That's what the administration has called it. And I will give you that. Mike Waltz has taken responsibility.

[13:10:00]

But as I said earlier, he was going to send the truly classified information through the government -- U.S. government classified systems.

SANCHEZ: I refute the idea that I underestimate our armed services.

Nevertheless, sir, I do wonder if you believe that using Signal to have this conversation was a good idea, whether a journalist was on it or not. Again, the Pentagon, U.S. agencies have warned against using this specific software because there is reputable information out there that foreign adversaries like Russia are trying to target these specific messaging systems.

SELF: Well, we looked into the encryption. A Signal is encrypted end to end, so you would have to actually have the algorithms if you were going to break into a specific chat.

So, look, I know DOD has said that it's vulnerable, but it is also approved for this level of conversation. Again, no classified information. This was a high level. And, remember, the vice president was off station, so they needed to use this system encrypted end to end to have this conversation.

SANCHEZ: So you disagree with President Trump, who says that he would have preferred that this conversation happened in the Situation Room or, in his words, in a room that was lead ceiling, lead floor, lead walls.

You think that this is the most effective way to have this conversation, via this app?

SELF: Well, when you have got people in disparate places, you have to have some sort of an app. And if you're not near either a STU telephone, a classified telephone, or a SCIF itself, then you're going to have to use something like this.

The vice president probably has a classified suite with him at all time, but perhaps not, because he was off station. So I don't -- the president is right. You always want to have these conversations in the most protected environment.

But when someone is -- needs to be in the conversation, such as the vice president, and he's not there, then you have to find a way to have these conversations with something that is encrypted end to end.

SANCHEZ: Well, there are secure video channels, for example, that are accessible to the vice president and members of the Cabinet. I also wonder if you have any concern that these Cabinet officials may have been using their personal devices to carry out these conversations, because, as you know, Congressman, Beijing, Moscow, even Tehran possibly do everything that they can to have access to the personal phones and the conversations that go on the personal phones of important figures in the administration.

SELF: Well, that's speculation. I'm not going to comment on a speculation because I don't...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: I'm asking if you have questions about that.

SELF: I don't have any idea if the Cabinet members were using their personal phones or not.

SANCHEZ: Would you like to know that? Would you like to know that? Should there be a congressional conversation that you would support in order to ask those questions of these key officials?

SELF: No, the White House has said they're going to conduct the investigation, and that's where it belongs. Let's let the White House conduct their investigation, make their decisions.

And, remember, this was a very successful operation. We have got to remember that. President Trump is reestablishing the credibility of the United States around the world. This operation helped do that.

SANCHEZ: I do want to ask you about policy and specifically something that the vice president mentioned in this chain. I did want to let you know, just a few moments ago, you may not have

been privy to this information, but the Senate Armed Services chair, Roger Wicker, along with the ranking Democrat on the panel, Senator Jack Reed, they have formally asked the administration for an inspector general report on this Signal chat and how this transpired.

I also am curious, Congressman, whether you think that there needs to be some form of accountability beyond a denial, what we have heard from the White House so far, these theories that somehow Jeffrey Goldberg was able to hack into this Signal chain, which there is no indication that he did.

SELF: No, Mike Waltz has taken responsibility for this. He has said, I did it. That's what a strong military officer, now is the adviser, does. He did it. Let's let the White House work.

And, yes, the Senate asks for the I.G. inspection report. That's exactly what Congress does. Let the White House do the investigation, make the I.G. report, and then pass it to Congress. I have no problems with what they said at all.

SANCHEZ: I wonder if you have a problem, Congressman, with the conversation being conducted the way that it was, in the sense that it was clear from the order of messages that President Trump had given the green light for this operation to go through.

And yet you have these officials, including the vice president, having this back-and-forth, which Stephen Miller pointed out came after the president made his order. Did it surprise you to see J.D. Vance say that he believes that we are making a mistake?

SELF: No, that's why high-level officials have these conversations. I have heard some very direct, very brutal conversations in the White House Situation Room when I was there.

[13:15:04]

That's exactly what people in this high level of discussion are going to do.

SANCHEZ: After a decision is made, sir?

SELF: They're going to force each other to actually make decisions based on everyone's input, which can be frank and brutal at times.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: After a decision was already made?

SELF: Absolutely, because, if they had decided -- remember, these are the highest-level officials, the CIA, the DNI, Hegseth. These are the highest-level officials.

If they had said, wait a minute, there may be decisions that we need to readdress with the president, absolutely. This is what happens behind the scenes normally. This is normal. This is absolutely normal. I have seen this. I have done this. This is what needs to happen behind the scenes, because, again, when we send young Americans overseas to kill people, we want to have every aspect discussed and re-discussed.

SANCHEZ: Sir, respectfully, I don't know if having a journalist be part of a conversation like this on an app that the government itself has said is unsafe is normal.

Nevertheless, Congressman Keith Self, we have to leave the conversation there. Thank you so much for joining us.

We do want to send it over to the White House, because the press secretary is taking questions. Let's listen.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: ... President Trump's first term by inventing the suckers and losers hoax to help Joe Biden in the 2020 election, by peddling a hoax about President Trump involving Gold Star families to help Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, which our campaign at the time vigorously denied.

Jeffrey Goldberg didn't care. There's more, but we don't have all day, and we can now add this Signal hoax to this very long list.

The real story here is the overwhelming success of President Trump's decisive military action against Houthi terrorists. On March 15, President Trump ordered a series of military operations against the terrorist Houthis to defend U.S. shipping assets in the Red Sea, restore freedom of navigation for international shipping, and defend the United States from enemy threats.

United States forces successfully struck dozens of targets across Houthi-controlled territory. And as a result of these actions, several Houthi leaders were killed, including the Houthi drone chief, his deputy, and several of their drone experts and other key leaders.

We also destroyed command-and-controlled facilities, weapons manufacturing facilities, and advanced weapons storage locations. And it's important to remember why this powerful action took place in the first place, because of Joe Biden's incompetence and pathetic weakness on the world stage for years.

The Houthi terrorists grew emboldened. Immediately after taking office in 2021, Joe Biden removed the Iran-backed Houthis from the foreign terrorist organization specifically designated global terrorist list. Did anybody in this room ask the Biden administration at the time why they made such a stupid mistake?

This reckless action undid the designation put in place by President Trump during his first term, and what followed was predictable and devastating. The Houthis targeted U.S. military ships and aircraft, hit commercial ships, including U.S.-flagged vessels, threatened our personnel overseas, and attacked our allies in the region. This resulted in more than a year of U.S.-flagged commercial ships

being prevented from safely sailing through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, and the Gulf of Aden. This had a massive negative impact on global trade, of the economic security of the United States.

Joe Biden was the commander in chief and he sat on his hands while the United States of America was bullied and embarrassed by terrorists. President Trump and his team are putting a stop to these threats and restoring American strength around the world.

The Trump peace-through-strength approach means no terrorist force will stop American commercial-enabled vessels from freely sailing the waterways of the world. But, unfortunately, this is not what the Democrats and the media want to talk about. They are focused on a coordinated campaign to try and sow chaos in this White House.

And this has been the most successful first two months of any administration ever, which is exactly why they are doing this. We are not going to bend in the face of this insincere outrage. And here is just one example of how bad faith the Democrats' criticisms are.

Democrat Senator Mark Warner is hysterical over the use of Signal, which is an approved decrypted app, in the killing of Houthi terrorists. But Senator Warner himself used Signal to work with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch to connect with a -- to connect the disgraced Steele dossier author who started the Russia hoax, which Jeffrey Goldberg later reported on.

How ironic. We're not going to lose focus of the bottom line, which is that Joe Biden's weakness enabled and emboldened Houthi terrorists and President Trump's strength and resolve eliminated those terrorists.

Here in our new media seat today, we have Lyndsay Keith. She is the managing editor for Merit TV and serves as their White House correspondent. Merit TV launched one year ago and creates and distributes content across diverse platforms.

[13:20:13]

We're glad to have you with us, Lindsay.

Please kick us off.

QUESTION: Thank you, Karoline. I appreciate it and this opportunity for Merit TV.

Two questions, if I may, one on Signal, one on the economy.

LEAVITT: Sure.

QUESTION: On Signal, how comfortable is the president with what was shared so far now that the chain has been released?

LEAVITT: The president's view on all of this remains the same today as it did yesterday. And I think it speaks volumes about the leadership of this president that he went directly to all of you, members of the press corps.

He was asked, do you want someone else to go out and do a briefing? And he said, no, I will tackle this story. I will discuss it. The people need to hear from me about this situation. And so his thoughts on this remained the same today. He has placed great trust in his national security team.

And as for the usage of Signal, as the president said yesterday, as the CIA director has testified under oath, this is an approved app. It's an encrypted app. The Department of Defense, the Department of State, the CIA has it loaded onto government phones because it is the most secure and efficient way to communicate.

As for, again, the original situation in this messaging thread, the National Security Council, the White House Counsel's Office continues to look in to how this mistake, which the national security adviser has owned, occurred. And the president has ensured they are doing that.

QUESTION: On the economy, consumer confidence hit a four-year low this month. Can you help explain to the American people how tariffs will help them in the long run?

LEAVITT: Yes, absolutely. And I'm grateful for the question.

The American public will hear later this afternoon from the president directly on the topic of tariffs. And as you all know, April 2 day, President Trump has proudly dubbed it liberation day for our country. What he means by that is, it will be a day where the United States of America will no longer be ripped off by nations around this world.

It will be a day where Americans finally see free and fair trade practices restored. We are no longer going to allow our allies, our competitors, and our adversaries to take advantage of American workers. And if you think about your hometown and the state that you grew up, Main Street looks a lot different today than it did many years ago.

And President Trump wants to restore America as a manufacturing superpower around the globe. He wants products to be made right here in our great country with great, hardworking American hands. That will ultimately result in higher wages and more money in the pockets of the American people.

And he's also -- in addition to tariffs, also determined to pass tax cuts later this year, as he did successfully in his first term, to put even more money back into the pockets of hardworking Americans -- Peter.

QUESTION: Karoline, if I can ask you very quickly about the information we have seen, just to set the predicate to all this, has the president been briefed and physically seen the -- he's seen all the details of the chat as printed by "The Atlantic"?

LEAVITT: I just spoke to the president about it, yes.

QUESTION: And let me ask you, if I can, very quickly.

In the chat, Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, details F-18s, Tomahawks, some of the weapons that were used. He details the timing involved for this, all of which occurred 31 minutes before, as he says, F-18s would launch.

The DOD manual details classified information as significant military plans, saying that is secret, that that's classified. So what about -- there are no methods, there are no sources, but that's not what is determines what's classified.

So what is it about what Pete Hegseth wrote that makes you say, this is not classified?

LEAVITT: Well, it's not just me saying that, Peter. It's the secretary of defense himself who is saying this as well.

QUESTION: On what basis?

LEAVITT: And he put out a very strong statement earlier today, listing all of the things that were not included in that message that he sent to the group.

And, again, this message, there was no classified information transmitted. There were no war plans discussed. Why did "The Atlantic" downgrade their allegation about war plans to attack plans? They're now playing word games because they know this was sensationalist spin from a reporter who is well-known for doing this.

We have said all along no war plans were discussed, no classified material was sent. You have the secretary of defense saying that. You have the director of the CIA, the director of national intelligence, the FBI director all testifying to that under oath.

And they should be trusted with that.

QUESTION: To be clear, Americans can make the decision for themselves.

LEAVITT: Sure.

QUESTION: But whether is the -- you said it's not war plans. Would you characterize these as military plans, military operation plans?

LEAVITT: I would characterize this messaging thread as a policy discussion, a sensitive policy discussion, surely, amongst high-level Cabinet officials and senior staff.

And I'm so glad, Peter, that you said the American public can decide for themselves, because I think the American public should decide for themselves based on the outcome of this operation. And what happened in this operation? Terrorists that were allowed to run wild by the Biden administration were killed because of the direction and the determination of this president and his team.

[13:25:00] And this message also shows, this messaging thread also proved that President Trump has an incredibly dynamic team who is working incredibly hard, flying all over the world to secure world peace and to fix up the foreign policy crises that the previous administration left for this team to inherit.

QUESTION: So, to be clear, we all in this room and around the country would agree that we're glad no American service members were harmed and we're glad that the mission was a success. We will stipulate that.

But the president said that Pete Hegseth said none of this was classified. So, given the president has seen it now, and given the president understands that significant military plans are deemed classified as secret, how does the president view none of this, which details times and weapons and more, as being not classified?

LEAVITT: I have already been asked and answered this question. The president's thoughts on this remain the same today as they were yesterday, as well as the secretary of defense.

QUESTION: On what basis, I'm asking.

LEAVITT: This question has been asked and answered. There was no classified material discussed.

QUESTION: On what basis, I was asking.

LEAVITT: Go ahead, Jacqui.

QUESTION: Thank you, Karoline.

So, why aren't launch times on a mission strike classified?

LEAVITT: Again, I would defer you to the secretary of defense's statement he put out this morning. There were various reasons he listed, things that were not included in that messaging thread that were not classified.

And, again, going back to the American public, do you trust the secretary of defense, who was nominated for this role, voted by the United States Senate into this role, who has served in combat, honorably served our nation in uniform? Or do you trust Jeffrey Goldberg, who is a registered Democrat and an anti-Trump, sensationalist reporter?

This president and this national security team are putting our national security and the American people first. We are restoring American strength around the world, and the results of this operation speak for themselves.

QUESTION: Putting aside Jeffrey Goldberg, though, just for American service members who are going to have to carry out these missions in the future, what -- I guess the message that's coming from the response to all this that we're hearing is that nothing sensitive happened. And I guess the logical conclusion of that is that, if these messages

had gone out publicly prior to the launch, that that wouldn't have been a risk to service members? I don't know that they're comfortable with that.

So, can you explain, had these messages been published, would the plans have moved forward? Would the launch have still taken off?

LEAVITT: What I can tell you is that the president, as the commander in chief of our United States armed forces, and Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is an incredible man and a war fighter himself, take the lives of our American service members with the utmost responsibility and they would never do anything intentionally to put the -- their lives at risk.

And, again, they are working hard on that every single day, and we are protecting our service members while also restoring peace throughout this globe. It's something the previous administration has not done. And I would just add one more point.

We are not going to be lectured about national security and American troops by Democrats in the mainstream media, who turned the other cheek when the Biden administration, because of their incompetence, left 13 service members dead in Afghanistan and not a single person in the previous administration was held accountable for that botched withdrawal.

Joe Biden said, in fact, it was a great operation. That is despicable. It's unacceptable to this president and this secretary of defense. The national security adviser has taken responsibility for this inadvertent number being added to the messaging thread. But, above all, we take the lives of our troops, safety, security, prosperity around the globe with the utmost seriousness.

(CROSSTALK)

LEAVITT: Jennifer (ph), go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you believe that he would release that to embarrass the administration ahead of the worldwide threats?

LEAVITT: Jennifer, go ahead.

QUESTION: Given what you have said about the president's trust in his national security team, can you say definitively that no one will lose their jobs, no one will lose their job at all because of this Signal situation?

LEAVITT: What I can say definitively is what I just spoke to the president about, and he continues to have confidence in his national security team.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: One more. Can I ask one more, Karoline? On the targets in Yemen on March 15, can you say, were 100 percent of the targets that were planned for March 15, were they all destroyed? Because that would be an indication, if some of them were moved, that they were not all hit, that maybe perhaps some of the enemies were able to get some of the information in that Signal chat.

LEAVITT: What I can say about the operation is what the Department of Defense has put out there. I would refer to them for any further operational details, but there have been more than 100 strikes conducted against Houthi targets, and they have hit key Houthi leaders, air defense systems, command-and-control nodes, headquarters, weapons manufacturing and storage facilities.

And these operations will continue until the freedom of navigation in our seas is restored and U.S. shipping can safely transmit without the fear of attack. Again, we believe that this has been a very successful operation thus far. And it will continue until this administration feels it no longer has to and these terrorists have been taken out, which, again, is something the previous administration should have done. But they didn't.