Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

WH Again Downplays Group Chat Attack Plan Controversy; WH Won't Say Why Timing of Military Strikes Wouldn't be Classified; Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) Discusses About War Plan Text; GOP Senate Armed Services Chair Wants Probe into Signal Chat; GOP Rep.: U.S. Mission would have Succeeded even if Chat had Leaked. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired March 26, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We are following breaking news this afternoon. The White House in defense mode and in a full court press after The Atlantic released more messages that its editor - that its editor-in-chief received when he was accidentally added to a group chat with top administration officials who discussed attack plans in Yemen. Those messages revealed details like the timing of strikes, certain targets and the weapons that would be used.

The question now becomes, was this information classified or not. The White House has been insistent that it was not, calling the exchange instead a sensitive policy discussion. But sources tell CNN that these texts were highly classified.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Today, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth again echoed the administration's message. Here's what he had to say a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: There's no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information. My job, as it said atop of that, everybody's seen it now, team update, is to provide updates in real time, general updates in real time, keep everybody informed. That's what I did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Let's begin our coverage with CNN's Alayna Treene, who is live at the White House this hour. So, in terms of what we are hearing from the White House and how they're trying to frame it, just walk us through what the White House is saying about it now this afternoon, Alayna.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, look, they are doubling and tripling down on this playbook that they really designed late on Monday, I was told, by several Trump administration officials. They are using that same playbook now, even as we have the actual exchanges now published by The Atlantic. And it really is to dry and downplay the seriousness of this and really dismiss some of the most egregious parts of this text message exchange that we are now reading, like I said, in real time from Jeffrey Goldberg, the reporter behind this, and also try to disparage the reporter at the heart of it.

And that's exactly what you saw White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt do today. She was repeatedly pushed by our colleague and other reporters on why is this - why does not - why does the White House not consider this to be classified information? Listen to what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: Now, Erica and Boris, as you both mentioned, we have now heard, though, from several people, including those - one person who was working on - who was familiar with the strategy as this was carried out, this attack on the Houthi rebels in Yemen, saying that this was - is considered classified information.

But look, as you mentioned, she said that these were not war plans. She called them, quote, "policy discussions," even though some of the messages clearly had the times that these attacks were going to be taking place, the weapons that would be used. Things that even we've heard now from Republicans on Capitol Hill, people like Lindsey Graham, someone who's very close to President Donald Trump, who are arguing if it's not classified, it's definitely highly sensitive information.

And we've now heard that from many of the top secretaries as well. She mentioned CIA Director John Ratcliffe. We've heard it from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. But I still think that there are so many questions that need to be answered. It's clear that on Capitol Hill, some committees are planning to launch an investigation. We also heard that Leavitt said there will be a review conducted by the National Security Council, White House counsel and even Elon Musk's team. She said Musk's had offered some of his technical experts to look into how Goldberg was added to this chat.

But I really do think, you know, to take a step back and look at this overall strategy, it is really to deny and downplay all of this. We'll see if it works, particularly now that, you know, this White House kind of called Jeffrey Goldberg's bluff and he published those messages for us to read. So much more on this to be to be heard, Boris and Erica.

HILL: Alayna Treene, appreciate it. Thank you.

[15:05:00]

Also with us CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Alex Marquardt. So, you know, we're hearing from - we just heard a short time ago from Secretary of State Marco Rubio. We heard as we just listened to a little bit of sound from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. I mean, everybody is sticking to, as we heard from Alayna, right? That we know what the playbook is. We know what the message is. I don't know how well that's actually being received, though.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, it depends on who you ask, of course. I mean, Hegseth is a main player here and Marco Rubio is being a loyal soldier. I thought it was interesting about what Rubio said was that he called this a big mistake. He really emphasized that. We're not really hearing that from the other top members of the Trump administration.

And then he also, as we heard from others, deferred to Marco Rubio about the fact that according to - sorry, to Hegseth about the fact that the Defense Department says that this is classified.

Now, Hegseth, of course, for his part, insisting that nothing there was classified. He mocked this idea that these were war plans. And I think interestingly, he talked about the warriors and the importance of the forces.

And guys, that's really what this comes down to. Putting aside the question of classified information, putting aside the question of war plans. The risk here, when you go outside of classified channels, is that that information falls into the wrong hands. And were it not Jeffrey Goldberg, it could have been someone else who, of course, could have fed that information to who knows, the Iranians, the Russians, the Houthis themselves. And then that could potentially endanger the lives of American service members and that's really what is at issue here.

When we looked at the hearing in the House this morning, the House Intelligence Committee, the director of the CIA, director of national intelligence, they continued to insist that there was nothing in there that was classified. There was an interesting moment with Congressman Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the committee. He essentially threw the book at Gabbard, reading her a definition - a definition - because there are many different kind - types of information that could be considered classified. And the one that he read that was top secret was plans for a U.S. strike and that's exactly what happened here.

And so, we continue to hear from the top intelligence officials that what was there was, A, not classified and, B, you have to go ask the Pentagon about whether or not that was indeed classified. But, you know, the ball seems to be rolling a bit faster on Capitol Hill in terms of lawmakers wanting - want answers particularly from the Senate Armed Services Committee that says they will be digging into this.

SANCHEZ: We'll see what comes of that.

Alex Marquardt, thank you so much.

HILL: Also joining me now to discuss Democratic congressman, Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee and questioned the intelligence chiefs earlier today.

Sir, good to have you with us this hour.

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Thank you.

HILL: As we noted at the top of the hour, Senate Armed Services chair Republican Roger Wicker, Democratic vice chair Reed (ph), today are now formally asking the Trump administration for an inspector general report here. We hear a lot about conversations that happened privately with your Republican colleagues. Is it your sense, perhaps, in what you're hearing, that there may be more support for that publicly from some of your Republican colleagues?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Possibly. I think after the texts were published today, it became clear as day that this is classified information. In my exchange with the witnesses, specifically Lieutenant General Cruz, the head of the Defense Information Agency - Intelligence Agency - I pointed out that the White House executive order today that the Trump administration uses in order to instruct people on how to classify information says that basically any information with regard to military plans, operations or weapons systems in this type of context shall be classified. And that's the same with the DOD manual.

And so he confirmed that this type of information was classified, and that's why I said when Pete Hegseth repeatedly denies that it's classified, it's an indication that unfortunately he's not qualified for the position. He needs to resign or be terminated.

You see, he needs to resign or be terminated. I was struck. There have been a number, as you know, a number of calls for his resignation. Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark was on with my colleague Wolf Blitzer earlier today. And Wolf asked him specifically about consequences. Here's some of what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: I think it would be an important milestone if people are held accountable. But maybe it's something other than being forced out of office. Maybe it's a letter of reprimand. Maybe it's something else that we don't see.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: What do you make of those suggestions, a letter of reprimand, something else we don't see?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think the problem is that, you know, when Mr. Hegseth not only fails to acknowledge that this was classified information but doubles down, doesn't take any ownership, doesn't take any accountability, what's going to happen is this - unfortunately is going to happen again.

[15:09:57]

This lapse - this security lapse is going to happen over and over again, either by principals such as himself or by people who are junior in the chain of command who basically look up and say, look, you know, if Pete Hegseth can do this, I can use WhatsApp, I can use SMS, I can use some other unauthorized platform to transmit very confidential or sensitive or classified information, and that would further endanger American lives.

I got a text message from a mom of a sailor who basically said, you know, my son has been instructed not to use Signal for precisely this type of information, conveying this information, and I think a lot of moms and dads out there with sons and daughters in uniform are going to be looking very critically at this situation for accountability.

HILL: When we look at this app in particular, Democratic Congressman Jason Crow, as part of his questioning earlier today, asking the head of the NSA about this warning that was issued internally last month about Signal, is that a warning that you and Congress also received?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Yes. And, you know, we - one of the reasons why you don't hear of too many members of Congress getting involved in these classified information disclosure scandals is because we never are allowed to take any classified information out of a secure space. It's called a SCIF, which is a bunker underneath the Capitol.

We are instructed to leave all classified information there. We can't view it electronically. And, you know, this is what should have happened here. They should have met in the Situation Room to discuss what was happening with regard to Yemen, and then for anybody who wasn't there, they could be piped in by secure video or audio. That's the only way that this type of information should have been discussed in a group setting.

HILL: Which we heard that would actually be President Trump's preference, is what he said. Also, what struck me today is Ranking Member Jim Himes, earlier today in his opening statement, said that, quote, "Everyone here knows the Russians or the Chinese could have gotten all that information."

As part of what you have been briefed on, have you or members of the intelligence community seen proof that the Russians or the Chinese are actively monitoring U.S. officials or potentially hacking into Signal?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Hundred percent, they're trying every day, especially on personal phones. Our government devices have safeguards, have some more protections than our personal phones. Our personal phones are constantly being targeted. And so, for these folks to be using an unauthorized messaging platform on their personal device to transmit or convey classified information is extremely, extremely dangerous, especially given that at least one of the participants was actually in Moscow, where the Russians are constantly monitoring communications.

HILL: So, I think you're referring to Steve Witkoff. What we have learned is that he reportedly, according to the White House, he did not have his personal phone on him, nor his government-issued phone because he was in Russia. The fact, though, that potentially this app could have been on a personal device, Secretary Rubio said just a few moments ago there will have to be reforms and changes made. Is that one of those changes that you believe needs to be made, that personal devices, there needs to be, I suppose, an edict that they cannot be used, which one would think is already out there, but that they cannot be used to share government information?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, certainly, at the least, not classified information, not information of a kind or a type that should be discussed in a secure space or in some other setting. But, yes, absolutely. That's why we need to have an investigation. One of the things I said is I think that Secretary Hegseth should resign, but there should be an investigation because I sense that this Signal - the use of the Signal for these types of matters may be more widespread and with regard to other topics than just this attack with regard to Yemen.

HILL: Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, we appreciate your time this afternoon. Thank you.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you so much.

HILL: Still ahead here, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem going south of the border for a three-day trip. Her first stop, El Salvador, where she is set to tour the mega-prison housing alleged gang members who were recently deported by the U.S.

SANCHEZ: And later, new CNN reporting on how the Trump administration is moving forward with their promise to dismantle FEMA. Their actions already threatening FEMA's ability to respond to major disasters. That and much more coming up on CNN News Central.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:18:52]

HILL: He denies the information is classified, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, however, does not deny sending texts to that group chat that relayed, among other details, the timing of several F-18 launches before they were set to happen.

SANCHEZ: Yes, explicitly saying this is when the first bombs will definitely drop. One Republican congressman who we spoke with earliaer said that even if Houthi rebels had seen all of that information in the signal chat, the U.S. strike would have just been as successful. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEITH SELF (R-TX): 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss with retired Army Major Mike Lyons and retired Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson.

General Anderson, I'm curious to get your reaction to that point of view that in no way would this information have either hindered the operation or put service members at risk.

BRIG. GEN. STEVE ANDERSON, U.S. ARMY (RET.): It's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous to think that that would not hinder.

[15:20:02]

There was at least five elements of top-secret information that was contained in that thread.

Now, we've talked about this war plans and the semantics of war plans. They weren't war plans in the sense that the 500-page war plans that I worked on in the War Plans Division and the Army staff, you know, 30 years ago. But they were critical elements, locations, weapons platforms to be used, delivery times. All that would have put American pilots at risk. The other thing is battle damage assessments.

There were critical battle damage assessments. There was human intelligence that was contained in that thread. There is somebody now on the ground in Yemen that is at risk that might be being tortured right now because they know that we had eyes on this guy walking into his girlfriend's apartment. This is absolutely egregious. This is top secret information. These people should be fired.

HILL: Should be fired, Major Lyons, would you agree?

MAJOR MIKE LYONS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Yes, I'm going to stay out of the political who should be fired. I could just speak to the process. And the process is broken. If there's one thing I'd like to see them come back is tell us that we fixed this process. This is no way for a country like us to go to war. I understand the concept of putting together this group chat of principals and deputies and, you know, getting everybody on the same page. But then it became very amateurish with regard to their (INAUDIBLE) Secretary of Defense puts that information there, as the General said, that crosses the Rubicon. It crosses the classified Rubicon.

So the process is broken. They should have rehearsed this. And I think that's the lesson they've got to take out of this. I'll let the politicians decide whether they should be fired or not. But in the normal military investigation, there likely would be consequences.

SANCHEZ: Major, you are not buying the line from the administration, from the Defense Secretary, from the Press Secretary, that because Pete Hegseth has said that this information is unclassified, therefore it is unclassified?

LYONS: No, not really. They're trying to thread this needle about when they can declassify information. They can say anything is declassified when they want to. In the moment, as it's been laid out on the time frames, it's clear it was in the clear, in the open, when it took place. Now, whether the enemy could have reacted, it's Machiavellian to say, the end has justified the means. And look, anytime we attack from the air, we go after air defense platforms and all these kinds of things.

But this administration has been described two ways, right? Go fast and break things from the technology side. But I think what we're seeing on the military side is this issue of commanders expect losses. And I think that, you know, in this case, they - this is their collateral damage of going fast in this case by putting this information out there, just trying to get this result that they wanted. And I'm glad there was no uniform military personnel on that group chat as well. I think that would have been a bullet that the military would have had to explain downrange.

HILL: General, what questions does this raise for you in terms of what else may have been communicated in this manner?

ANDERSON: Well, That's in ...

HILL: I mean, we wouldn't know about it if Jeffrey Goldberg wasn't accidentally at it.

ANDERSON: Yes. I mean, this might be going on. This might be a standard operating procedure for this administration. There might be hundreds of these type of chats that are out there right now. And the Russians and the Chinese might very well have right now. And if not for an ethical reporter like Jeffrey Goldberg to come up on the net and say, look what happened to me, we might not ever know about this.

This is absolutely egregious. These people are totally incompetent. They've been lying. They're deceitful. They do not belong in these positions. I mean, they committed perjury yesterday. Tulsi Gabbard, you know, absolutely. They knew - these people knew what they were communicating was top secret information. You know, we have got to set a standard in this country. We can't - we've got to hold our leaders accountable and responsible. And President Trump needs to hold these same leaders accountable and responsible and that starts with firing, I believe, Pete Hegseth.

Remember, he's the one that said, accountability starts now. Well, Secretary Hegseth, let's start with accountability by having you submit your resignation today.

SANCHEZ: General, I wonder if you see any benefit to using Signal as a way to facilitate these conversations because part of what we've heard in defense of this conversation was that there were folks who were traveling, they couldn't get everybody on a secure video line or they couldn't get them all in a SCIF. Is there some kind of positive to using Signal to facilitate these kinds of conversations?

ANDERSON: No. Not in these kinds of conversations. SCIFs, the SIPRNet, JWICS, these are systems the Americans have - the taxpayers have devoted billions of dollars to develop these classified systems. This capability to have these kinds of conversations. What they had - the discussions they had were totally appropriate, but not to be done on a cell phone. Anybody's cell phone can be hacked. We are constantly at risk of being hacked all the time, everybody knows that. And these people were lazy and incompetent and that's why they're doing that.

[15:25:01]

And the other thing, they're trying to escape accountability. They don't want this to be submitted under the Records Act, they want to be able to have plausible deniability that these conversations ever took place.

That's one of the reasons why they're doing that. They're not using official lines of communication. They're using Snapchats and discussions on social media so they can get around the requirements of the law. And that is absolutely indefensible, and again, these people need to be fired.

HILL: Major, you touched on this a little bit, you both did a little bit, but what does this do in terms of our allies and the message that it sends to U.S. allies in terms of what the trust level is?

LYONS: Yes, I think there's - we've got to be concerned about that. The General pointed out we have battle damage assessment. That could have come from an ally. That information that was conveyed, the information that we were tagging that individual, the missile guy they called him, that could have come from an ally. So, it does beg the question as to what our allies are involved and how they're involved with this and the conversation they had about Europe in the beginning of that, you know, again, maybe more transparency was good on some level.

But at the end of the day, they need to be working on the partnerships, especially in the intel community. Look, every one of those phones and those people on that chat, they're being collected by not just our enemies, but our friends, the French, the British, everyone's trying to figure out what our leaders are talking about. So, it is astonishing that they don't realize that on those very public phones that they were working on.

SANCHEZ: Major Lyons, General Anderson, thank you both. Appreciate your point of view.

ANDERSON: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: When we come back, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in El Salvador right now. She's set to tour the notorious prison that's housing alleged Venezuelan gang members deported by the United States.