Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Hegseth Under Scrutiny After Second Signal Group Chat Revealed; College Leaders Sign Statement Opposing "Political Interference" By Trump Admin; Karen Read Facing Retrial On Charges Including Second- Degree Murder. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 22, 2025 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We are just now hearing for the first time from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt answering questions from reporters about Defense Secretary Pete Hegsmith.

Moments ago, she was asked about the latest Signal group chat controversy involving the secretary of defense.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The secretary of defense is doing a tremendous job. And he is bringing monumental change to the Pentagon. And there's a lot of people in this city who reject monumental change.

And I think, frankly, that's why we've seen a smear campaign against the secretary of defense since the moment that President Trump announced his nomination before the United States Senate.

Let me reiterate, the president stands strongly behind Secretary Hegseth and the change that he is bringing to the Pentagon. And the results that he's achieved, thus far, speak for themselves.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss with Democratic Congressman from Washington State, Adam Smith. He's the ranking member on the House Foreign Services Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us.

I want you to react to what you just heard there from the press secretary, this is part of a coordinated smear campaign. Hegseth himself, earlier today, saying that essentially this is disgruntled employees. What do you make of that?

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Well, first of all, what monumental change is Ms. Leavitt talking about? I follow this apparently closely at the Pentagon. Nothing much has changed at the Pentagon in terms of making it more efficient, making it more effective.

You know, the war in Gaza goes on. You know, they started bombing in Yemen. There's been no significant improvements in acquisitions or procurements. The only change that we've seen is an effort to ban books and fire people that Trump thinks are disloyal to him.

And we've seen this throughout the Pentagon. They're not just banning books, they're banning words. Apparently, you can't say the word "gay" anywhere in the Department of Defense anymore.

They fired C.Q. Brown, an incredibly qualified chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So I would challenge them, what monumental change are you talking about that has anything to do with improving national security of this country or making the Pentagon more efficient and more effective? We don't see any of that.

We see a lot of the purging of people based on loyalty. And again, we see all of the book banning and the cultural war. How is that bringing about monumental change, number one?

Number two, the evidence is pretty clear. I mean, they shared the first group chat with a reporter, who showed very clearly that Secretary Hegseth was sharing sensitive classified information right before a military attack and those choose to ignore that.

So I don't know what they're talking about in saying that he's bringing about monumental change and that's why people are criticizing him.

SANCHEZ: The Pentagon maintains, Congressman, that nothing that was shared was classified. You obviously have reason to think that there were sensitive materials, that it should be classified.

I wonder what you make, in Hegseth's words, of him sharing, quote, "information unclassified coordinations for media coordinations and other things via Signal."

Is it appropriate for him to be doing that with his brother, his wife, and his personal attorney?

SMITH: Yes, I don't know what he means by that but I can't imagine anything within the internal workings of the Pentagon that you need to be sharing on a Signal chat with your wife or your attorney or your brother. So I mean, that's just not appropriate to set that up in the first place.

But second, let's go back to that first chat where you showed Secretary Hegseth saying when we were going to attack, where we we're going to attack, and what we we're going to attack with an hour or so prior to an attack. If Secretary Hegseth doesn't think that that kind of information

should be classified, then we've got a much, much bigger problem in that he doesn't fundamentally understand a key aspect of his job.

SANCHEZ: To be clear, both his brother, Phil Hegseth, and Tim Parlatore, the secretary's attorney, work at the Pentagon. Do you have any issues with that?

SMITH: So, again, we don't really know. And you're right that that was a bit of an overstatement. If, in fact, these are people who work at the Pentagon and have need for that information, that's fine.

But it's mostly nonspecific. We don't know why. And I certainly don't know why his wife would - would -- would be on a -- on a formal chat like that.

But we just don't know enough about what's -- what's happening on that piece of it. But we do know what was on that one Signal chat, as I mentioned before.

And again, I did not initially call for Secretary Hegseth to resign when the Signal chat came out. I called for him to resign when he reacted to it by saying we're not going to do anything about it. This is standard operating procedure. Nothing to see here, no big deal.

I mean, if he wasn't even going to try to fix it. Look, I mean, classified sensitive information can be difficult. On the House Armed Services Committee, every once in a while, things will come out. We will have to remind members that were in a classified setting, don't say this.

But to do that and then say, no, this is just the way we're going to do things and to make no effort to fix it, to make no effort to improve operational security when you have such a clear flaw in it, I mean, that's just -- that's just incompetent.

[13:35:12]

SANCHEZ: Congressman, it struck me that Dan Caldwell, one of the DOD aides that Hegseth fired, expressed some doubt to Tucker Carlson about whether there was actually an investigation into leaking.

And as you heard from, or may have not heard, but Secretary Hegseth was really digging in on this idea that they were going to crack down on leaks at the Pentagon earlier today.

But here, Caldwell says that there's a lot of evidence that there is not a real investigation.

How do you make sense of that? Would you have him and some of these others that were fired come in and testify before the House Armed Services?

SMITH: We should. And certainly, I'm going to press the majority to do that. I mean, sadly, the Republicans are in the majority. They would have to make that decision. Now, we're going to have a hearing next week on a resolution of inquiry that I filed to ask some of these questions. So we will have a public discussion about it.

But the biggest thing I make of this is, no, I don't think there is an investigation. I think there's a purge. I mean, Donald Trump made no mistake about it. He -- he ran for a second term as president because he wants vengeance on his enemies.

And that's certainly playing out across the government in a wide variety of ways. Pulling security details and security clearances from people he perceives to be his enemies.

So I think Mr. Caldwell is probably right. What's happening at the Pentagon is probably more of a purge, you know, just to try to make sure that people stay loyal.

And understand the two-step process there. One, yes, you fire people that the president perceives as not being loyal. But the other thing is, when you fire those people, it has a chilling effect on everybody else.

Everybody else who stays knows, if I want to keep my job, it's not about doing the job well. It's not about representing the American people or protecting national security. It's about being absolutely loyal to Donald Trump.

So I think Mr. Caldwell is probably right. It's more of a purge than an investigation.

SANCHEZ: But quickly, Congressman, my understanding from reading the reporting is that these folks were actually hired by Secretary Hegseth. So what does that tell you?

SMITH: Yes. Well, I guess that gets to my second point that, you know, I mean, if you're willing to fire anyone that - that -- that really sort of amps up the chilling message.

But -- but there's an aspect of it I don't fully -- fully understand. Maybe Secretary Hegseth believed that they had been leaking or somehow weren't loyal in some way.

But I think the overarching thing that that says is it points to the articles that have been written and the people who have been quoted about the level of chaos going on at the Pentagon.

And whatever Ms. Leavitt has to say, it doesn't seem to be that they're bringing about monumental change. They're just doing a bad job of running a very important organization right now. And I think we all need to hope that they get better.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Adam Smith, thanks for sharing your point of view.

SMITH: Thanks for giving me the chance. I appreciate it.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

Up next, the education secretary is defending the administration's escalating fight with Harvard after more than 100 colleges and universities accused the White House of unprecedented government overreach. We'll discuss next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:42:34]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: More than 100 college and university leaders have issued a joint letter condemning the Trump administration's efforts to dictate policies at their private institutions.

The letter reads in part, "We speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education."

Among the people who have signed on is the president of Harvard. The nation's oldest university is at the center of an escalating fight with the White House.

And in the latest twist, Harvard is now filing a lawsuit over the freeze of federal funds, which came after the Ivy League school refused to submit to a slew of demands by the Trump administration.

Among those demands, that Harvard give the administration access to all university reports on anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim bias on campus generated since October 2023.

Also, that the school eliminate DEI programs, make hiring changes, and reform its admissions process.

Here's the education secretary in response to Harvard's new lawsuit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LINDA MCMAHON, EDUCATION SECRETARY: It was a letter that was intended to have both parties sit down again and continue their negotiations. That's what I sincerely hope will happen.

But Harvard has now filed a lawsuit. The government will counter. I think we're on very solid grounds that this -- the negotiations that we are having with Harvard and the reason that these funds have been frozen is because of a civil rights issue and not a freedom of speech issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: And joining us now is Ryan Enos. He is a professor at Harvard and a member of Harvard's chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which is separately suing the Trump administration.

Thank you, Professor, for being with us. You hear Secretary McMahon there trying to say it is Harvard that is

escalating this with a lawsuit, that this letter was just part of a negotiation. The -- the letter of demands, to be clear.

What's your reaction to that?

RYAN ENOS, PROFESSOR, HARVARD UNIVERSITY & MEMBER, HARVARD CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS: Well, I think it's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. And I'm sure that most other people see that as well.

Harvard is not -- is not escalating anything by simply defending its constitutional rights. That's like you would be saying, if the government comes in and shuts down a newspaper for saying things they don't like or tries to shut down a law firm.

Which, incidentally, is what the Trump administration has been trying to do, that when that newspaper or that law firm or that university pushes back and says, we have a constitutional right to speech, that that is an escalation.

[14:45:02]

That's completely against American traditions and American values. When the government attacks people, if they fight back, that is not an escalation of something. That's simply defending your own rights.

KEILAR: She's saying this is a civil rights issue over how Jewish students have been treated. It's not a free-speech issue. What's your response to that claim?

ENOS: You know, similarly, the administration, the Trump administration is making claims about things that, in many ways, violate common sense. It's a pretext in order to attack what they consider to be their political enemies.

Donald Trump does not care about anti-Semitism. And I don't think any reasonable person would believe he does. He has people in his inner circle that give Nazi salutes. He's dined with white supremacists.

And they have said, over and over again, that there's an issue of anti-Semitism, acute anti-Semitism on Harvard's campus in a way that demands some kind of civil rights intervention. But the acute anti- Semitism does not exist on Harvard's campus.

To the extent that there might be anti-Semitism, just like any other bigotry that might exist at Harvard, like it would exist anywhere, that's something that Harvard could take steps to redress.

But is not something that requires the cancellation of things like cancer -- funding for cancer research or research on Alzheimer's Disease, or all the other things that Donald Trump has tried to attack for political purposes.

KEILAR: Lou Gehrig's Disease, the list goes on and on. And we'll talk a little bit about what some of those cuts mean in a moment. I do want to ask you, though -- and let's put aside that this is a

president who is historically selective about which anti-Semitism he condemns. Because obviously, that doesn't mean universities should be.

But the Anti-Defamation League, which I note has expressed concern about potential overreach by the administration, says "Anti-Semitic incidents hit a record high last year" in their annual audit that's out today, and that it was fueled in part by campus protests.

They have Massachusetts as number four nationally for anti-Semitic incidents. They have Boston and Cambridge as the hot spots in Massachusetts.

And I know that you told my colleague, Jessica Dean, this weekend that Harvard has done enough to protect Jewish students on campus. Obviously, you're open to them doing more.

But I wonder what you think they should be doing if this deserves further action.

ENOS: So I believe that any type of bigotry deserves action. And I want to make that crystal clear.

But I would challenge the Anti-Defamation League or anybody else to make very clear as well that they can separate constitutional rights.

Especially ones -- ones that come to protest their government's action, like students protesting the United States' support for Israel and its war on Gaza, from anti-Semitism.

And if we start completing those two things, then we are on very dangerous ground. Because people in the United States have an absolute right to protest government action. And that does not make anything anti-Semitic.

And if you look at what the Anti-Defamation League has claimed, most of those incidents that they claim are incidences of people protesting a war. And that is clearly not anti-Semitism.

In fact, it's something that we should welcome in this country because we believe in dissent on college campuses or anywhere else.

KEILAR: Yes. I do want to know -- I think they tried to be very careful about not conflating those.

But I want to ask you a little bit more about this fight. Because in the case of Harvard, you have, as you mentioned, all of this research money, so much of it -- I think more than 10 percent of Harvard's research money, a lot of it has to do with diseases, looking for things to save lives.

But it's also computer science, law and engineering, all kinds of things that are very important. And it's not just Harvard, right? When you look at other universities that don't necessarily have the stature, the endowment of the alumni network. I wonder what you think the effect is, as this plays out, which could take years to go to the Supreme Court, what do you think, Professor, the effect of this fight on higher education in America is going to be here, in the near term and in the next few years?

ENOS: Well, look, if the United States government brings the full brunt of its power against institutions like American universities, then, of course, it can be very, very damaging.

And I think that's something that we need to understand. Because American universities are one of the great engines of the economy in the United States.

They are -- they are spread across the communities across the United States. They provide so many jobs. They provide a ripple effect out into the type of innovation and technology they provide that provides further jobs.

And when those things come under attack, it can really, really limit what the -- the beneficials effects those universities have on their communities and on the larger United States.

And right now, we're fortunate, in some ways, the Trump administration has been targeting their attacks to a limited number of universities, like Harvard and Columbia and other places.

[13:50:07]

But that is not their intention. Their intention is to chill dissent generally at these universities.

And if they pull out government funding from universities more generally, then that can have a devastating effect on the beneficial things that these campuses do, these universities do across the country.

KEILAR: Yes, this is a fight with Harvard but it goes much more broadly.

Professor Ryan Enos, thanks for being with us.

ENOS: You're welcome. Thank you.

KEILAR: Next, the prosecution calling its first witness in the murder retrial of Karen Read. Their key testimony, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:55:08]

SANCHEZ: Testimony has now begun in the second murder trial of Karen Read. She's he Massachusetts woman accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer, John O'Keefe, back in 2022.

Now prosecutors allege that Read struck O'Keefe with her SUV and left him to die. But her defense team says that she was framed as part of a vast police coverup.

Let's get right to CNN's Jean Casarez, who has been tracking this for us.

Jean, what can you tell us?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're on the first witness right now. They're at their lunch break so they should be resuming in a minute.

But the prosecution said in their opening statement, plain and simple, that what happened that night, Karen Read pulls up to the house, and after party is going on in the house. Police officers arrive.

John O'Keefe gets out and they said the black box data, which they have more of this time, shows she put the car in neutral.

Put the car in reverse, pushed the accelerator down 75 percent of as far as it would go, and went back 70 feet, hitting O'Keefe, him falling down and the dry cement, at that point, cracking his skull.

Now the defense is saying that that is not how it happened. And they're saying it is because all of the officers in that home are covering something up.

Take a listen to the defense opening.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN JACKSON, KAREN READ DEFENSE ATTORNEY: John O'Keefe did not die from being hit by a vehicle. Period. The facts will show that. The evidence will show that. The data will show that. The science will show that. And the experts will tell you that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: Both sides are focusing in on the data and the science and the forensics. I think that's going to be a big part of this case.

The defense went on to say this -- this case is a malignancy that has been there from the beginning because of the lead prosecutor. It's all his friends that were in the house that night. And he never even began to interview any of the officers, only focused on Karen Read.

SANCHEZ: Jean Casarez, thank you so much for tracking that for us.

Still to come, Wall Street has some hope after a top White House official said they expect the trade war with China to de-escalate. We have some new reporting coming up in just minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)