Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Hegseth Says They're On Plan for the War; Strikes on Energy Sites; Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) is Interviewed about Iran; Toop Intel Chiefs on Capitol Hill; Threats Facing the U.S.; Robert Echeverria is Interviewed about TSA. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired March 19, 2026 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: He says that Jimmy has a flight booked home to the U.S. on Saturday and stresses how out of character this is for a man that he describes as incredibly responsible.

We do also know that Jimmy's father has already traveled to Barcelona to try and help with the search.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: We are thinking about the Gracey family this morning and hoping for a break in this.

Dianne Gallagher, thank you so much for the update.

A brand-new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, just moments ago, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave an update on the war in Iran. Short on details. Long on political attacks. But three things made clear. Today, he says, will be the most intense day of strikes since the war began. There was no distinct timeline for this war given. And on reports the Pentagon has asked for at least $200 billion in supplemental funding for the Iran war, Hegseth responded, it takes money to kill bad guys.

Right now on Capitol Hill, America's top intelligence officials are back in the hot seat to discuss the worldwide threat assessment. Will they dodge questions about intel leading to the Iran war after a hearing full of contradictions?

And the legendary Will.i.am has got a feeling that his newest tech innovation will change the way we all do our work. The three-wheeled marvel, the former Black-Eyed Pea is rolling out.

I'm Sara Sidner, with John Berman and Kate Bolduan. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

BERMAN: All right, the breaking news this morning, just moments ago we heard from the secretary of defense on the war on Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the U.S. will unleash its largest strike package yet today. But he declined to say when the war would end. He did say it was very much on track. He was asked about the Israeli strike on the world's largest gas

field, Iran's South Pars, that has sent oil prices and gas prices soaring this morning. But he declined to address the contradicting claims about it. The president said overnight, the United States knew nothing about the strike ahead of time. But that's not what reports are saying. An Israeli source tell CNN that Israel carried out the attack in coordination with the United States.

This is how the secretary of defense answered it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We hold the cards. We have objectives. Those objectives are clear. We have allies pursuing objectives as well. And the truth speaks for itself. I mean President Trump was very clear about that. Iran has weaponized energy for decades. Israel clearly sent a warning. And POTUS has made it clear. Very clear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Unclear whether the truth speaks for itself.

Again, the president said the United States did not know. "Axios," CNN and others reporting that Israel is saying the United States absolutely did know.

Let's get to CNN's Zach Cohen in Washington for the latest on this.

And a briefing that honestly was short on details. Not a lot of new news, as we like to say in the business, Zach.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, exactly right, John. It was interesting though, Pete Hegseth sort of giving out two dueling sort of messages. On one hand, he wanted to reiterate and emphasize this idea that the U.S. is winning this war and really put a finer point on some of the military accomplishments that he thinks were worth highlighting.

At the same time, both he and General Caine acknowledging that there is a significant amount of work left to be done and that Iran does maintain some capability to hit back. It was interesting that General Caine alluded to some of the first efforts to clear the Strait of Hormuz even that we've heard so far. While they didn't get into detail, he did say that the U.S. military is now using what are called A-10 Warthogs, ground -- close air support aircraft to start targeting fast attack boats near the Strait of Hormuz. Those are some of the asymmetric tools that Iran has at its disposal to continue to threaten oil tankers in that key waterway, even if its navy or naval capability has been significantly degraded.

But Hegseth, again, not really getting into specifics, including on the timeline. I think that's still one of the biggest questions here. He essentially said that Donald Trump -- President Donald Trump will be the one to ultimately decide once the military objectives are complete and once the political objectives are complete. And at that point will say that the war is over.

So, obviously, Pete Hegseth will continue to face questions about the timeline until we hear something more definitive. We'll also continue to push the Pentagon on providing details about -- to show some statistics about how they can show the damage done to the Iranian capability. Because at the end of the day, Tulsi Gabbard said yesterday that if this Iranian regime survives, they will be very motivated to rebuild what they've lost.

BERMAN: Yes, it is interesting to see. We should note, Tulsi Gabbard testifying right now on Capitol Hill. We will get to her as the questions begin there.

Zach Cohen, thank you very much.

[09:05:01]

Let's bring in Oren Liebermann, who is in Jerusalem also watching this.

Oren, what was your takeaway from the briefing and what is the latest on the situation on the ground and this really -- this new phase of the war with natural gas being caught in the middle?

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN JERUSALEM BUREAU CHIEF: Well, for all the boasting from Secretary Pete Hegseth there about destroying Iran's military capabilities, there have been multiple rounds of incoming ballistic missile fire from Iran towards Israel today and virtually every day, although it's certainly not as high as the numbers at the beginning of the war. There has been a steady number of a couple dozen missiles or so from Iran coming in every day, mostly targeted at Tel Aviv and in central Israel. But we even had a siren here in Jerusalem. So, Iran retains the capability to fire back and to strike back.

And this is three weeks into the war where ballistic missile arrays and launchers have been a prime target. Iran still has plenty, it seems, squirreled away somewhere. It has been able to lash out. We've seen that not only against Israel, but also against gulf states, as we see this major escalation.

And back to that key question of the South Pars gas facility. That's what Israel struck. And then President Donald Trump denying that the U.S. knew anything about it. We've now heard, John, as you pointed out, not only from Israeli officials, but also from a U.S. official, that the U.S. was aware of the strike and that the Trump administration was aware that Israel was going to strike a natural gas field.

The problem there has -- it was quickly escalated because Iran lashed out and attacked energy and oil infrastructure across the gulf. And even if we've seen those types of attacks before, this is still a major escalation without any clear -- first, any clear way to stop Iran from carrying out these attacks. For Iran, these are fairly short range attacks. And even if some are intercepted, as we've seen many over the course of the past few days, some get through. And you only need a couple to get through to see the worldwide effect we're seeing on gas prices, on natural gas.

So, this remains a key question here. It's not so much a break between the U.S. and Israel. Both sides have lauded the close cooperation at the military and political level. And that leaves us, John, at the question of, then why is Trump trying to spin this as, oh, the US. didn't know Israel was going to strike the gas facility? The level of coordination between the countries, what we've heard from Israel and the U.S. makes it clear that they were on the same page, and they are aware of each other's military operations here.

BERMAN: Yes, so why say otherwise? Great question.

Oren Liebermann, our thanks to you.

Sara.

SIDNER: All right, joining me now is Democratic Congresswoman Sara Jacobs of California. She serves on both the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees.

Thank you for being here.

Let's start with what happened in the oil fields. Iran hit Saudi, Qatar and Kuwait's refineries and infrastructure after Israel bombed South Pars in Iran, which is part of the world's largest natural gas reserve.

President Trump -- and lets just put out what he said. He said the U.S. did not know that Israel was going to do this. And then he said, in part, let's bring that up, "no more attacks will be made by Israel pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars field unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case, Qatar." And he goes on to say that he will then potentially bomb Iran's gas fields.

What do you make of this back and forth here? Because we've got reporting now from our Jeremy Diamond saying that U.S. officials did know that this strike was going to happen by Israel.

REP. SARA JACOBS (D-CA): Yes. Look, I think there's been a lot of talk and debate about the role Israel played in getting us into this war. And, you know, Bibi Netanyahu wanting to do regime change in Iran for decades. I think we aren't talking enough about the fact that now that we're in it, Israel and the Netanyahu government has been consistently taking us up the escalation ladder. And the U.S. and Donald Trump and the administration is just kind of going along with it.

And I think that's exactly what we're seeing. I think it's very clear that the U.S. military objectives and the Israeli military objectives are not the same. Our military tells us that our objectives are very clear. They're about degrading Iran's military and nuclear capacity. The Israelis have spoken very publicly that their objective is regime change. And I think that, you know, especially if you look at what we can live with for, for the Netanyahu government, it's about having a weakened Iran that can't attack them. For the U.S. it's about also making sure our gulf partners are not going to get attacked, making sure the Strait of Hormuz stays open. We just have very different objectives.

And so, while this is a, you know, joint and coordinated military campaign, we should not kid ourselves that actually we are going after and wanting the same things. And I think you're seeing that in the differing tactics.

SIDNER: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insists that the United States and Israel are on the same page. We just heard him say so during his press conference.

[09:10:02]

I do want to ask you about him responding to a reporter asking whether or not the Pentagon has asked for $200 billion in supplementary money for the war in Iran. And he basically responded to that by saying that it takes money to kill bad guys. Would you be willing to vote for an extra $200 million for this war?

JACOBS: Absolutely not. I will not be voting for --

SIDNER: Sorry, billion.

JACOBS: Billion, yes. Absolutely not. I will not be voting for any supplemental for this war for two reasons. One, I think that this war is wrong. It's ill advised. It's illegal. And sending more money only allows them to escalate further.

But also because we've seen, in multiple court proceedings, that it is viewed that if you fund a war, it is viewed as de facto Congress authorizing the war. And I do not think this war should be authorized. And if they want it to be authorized, they need to come to Congress and actually explain what the plan is, what the timeline is, what end game they're trying to get, how we're getting out of this, what the, you know, what the off ramps are that they're going to try and take. And they've not done any of that. We have yet to hear a real plan. And we're almost three weeks into this war.

Not to mention the fact that $200 billion is the equivalent of the -- of the budget of the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development combined. There are many, many things I would much rather us be spending that $200 billion on to bring down the cost of Americans living, not to prosecute a war that so far has not made any of us safer and has no real benefits that I can see.

SIDNER: I want to ask you about what we heard from Oman now, that they were the intermediary, as you well know, in negotiations between the United States and Iran days before the U.S. and Israel struck Iran and begun this war. Oman's foreign minister says that this is Trump's greatest miscalculation and that the U.S. has lost control of foreign policy in what he called an unlawful war. Is that how you see it?

JACOBS: Yes. I don't think he's wrong. Look, I don't know if the Iranians were negotiating in good faith or not. But we do know they have signed an agreement before. We had a verifiable agreement that Obama got us into, that Donald Trump is who tore us out of. But also, if you just think like, rationally, if you're the Iranian

regime now, you have no incentive not to build a nuclear weapon. You have no incentive not to escalate further. Anyone who was a moderate within the regime, who was advocating for negotiating with the United States instead of a military operation, has been, frankly, made a joke of because of what the United States is doing. And so, their hardliners are -- have even more power within the government.

Like, we're not getting anything -- I don't see any benefit that we're getting from this military operation. What we're most likely to get is either a failed state in a really strategically important part of the world, or a civil war, or a much more hard line Iranian regime that has no reason, no incentive not to go full bore on their nuclear program.

SIDNER: Congresswoman Sara Jacobs, thank you so much for joining us this morning. I do appreciate it.

Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, also happening right now, as you can see behind me, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and other top intelligence officials are back on Capitol Hill, today testifying before the House Intelligence Committee, tasked with laying out their worldwide threat assessment. Yet they are definitely going to be facing additional questions today after dodging -- seemed to be dodging questions yesterday about the intelligence assessment in the lead up to the war in Iran.

CNN's Evan Perez is standing by. He's watching this one as it plays out, along with us this morning.

And, actually, Evan, just stand with me for a second. Let's jump in and listen to a little bit of this hearing.

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): At the Fulton County, Georgia, election office at the direction of the president, and to all appearances, in connection with the president's false claims about the 2020 election. The unsealed affidavit submitted by the FBI made zero reference to foreign powers or outside interference. I don't want to relitigate the reasons why you were there, but I do want to know whether, as a result of your visit, there is credible intelligence in your possession pointing to foreign interference in Georgia in the 2020 election.

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Thank you for the question, Ranking Member.

As you know, over each of the previous elections there is an ongoing effort by different foreign entities to try to interfere in our elections.

HIMES: Ma'am, it's a very specific question. It's a -- is there intelligence in your possession relative to foreign interference in the 2020 elections? It's a very simple, straightforward question.

GABBARD: We are continuing to look at previous attempts to interfere in our elections and any ongoing threats that may exist for the upcoming elections.

HIMES: OK, but can I assume that the answer to the -- my question is, no, that you have no specific intelligence related to foreign meddling in the Georgia election?

[09:15:06]

GABBARD: The -- we are continuing to look into this matter.

HIMES: OK. Director, the ODNI has confirmed on the record that your office took custody of voting machines from Puerto Rico last May. I'm not aware of any previous DNI taking similar actions. Did your office promptly notify the committee about taking custody of Puerto Rico's voting machines?

GABBARD: I don't believe we did. However, this was done at the request of the Puerto Rico AUSA attorney and in conjunction with the FBI.

HIMES: Ma'am, it's a yes or no question. The answer, as you have acknowledged, is, no, you did not inform the committee about the taking of a territory's voting machines.

Is there a specific foreign threat? And I've read the reporting that you were looking for possible foreign threats, but is there a specific foreign threat that drove you to take this action?

GABBARD: There were questions about whether or not there were vulnerabilities that a threat could have taken advantage of, and that was the purpose for their requesting us to look into those vulnerabilities.

HIMES: Where are those voting machines now?

GABBARD: I believe they are held in a secure facility at ODNI.

HIMES: Have you or other ODNI officials taken any other state or territory's voting equipment into custody?

GABBARD: Not to my knowledge.

HIMES: I want to turn, in the subject of elections, to a paradoxical thing. You will all be aware that the U.S. government is apparently going to grind to a halt, the president is going to sign no more bills, the Senate will spend two weeks apparently debating the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act, of course, would make illegal foreigners voting in U.S. elections, which is already illegal. So, we are to do no more business because of apparently the existential threat to our democracy associated with foreigners voting in our elections.

I am therefore puzzled by the fact that neither the unclassified nor the classified threat assessment makes any reference to risk or danger associated with foreigners voting in our elections.

Director Patel, how many non-citizens have been convicted of voting in U.S. elections in the last ten years?

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: The conviction stats were -- are with the Department of Justice. I defer to them on that.

HIMES: You are the director of the FBI. Give me a guess. How many convictions in the last one year, five year or ten year? Ballpark.

PATEL: I don't have that with me, sir. Again, it's with the department.

HIMES: You don't have that. OK.

Director Patel, how many active investigations does the FBI have into foreign individuals voting in U.S. elections?

PATEL: We have a number of investigations, generally speaking, ongoing about individuals across the country.

HIMES: Yes, I'm asking for that number.

PATEL: I don't have that number with me, but I have a number of them.

HIMES: You have a number of investigations. OK. Is that number 10,000? Is it closer to 10,000 or closer to ten?

PATEL: It's probably somewhere in between.

HIMES: OK. Will you please provide the committee with that number?

PATEL: Yes, sir.

HIMES: OK. Director Patel, would it -- since you don't have the numbers, would it surprise you to know that the Heritage Foundation, which is not exactly the Columbia University faculty lounge, found only 77 instances of non-citizen voting in the 24 years between 1999 and 2023, each of which faced investigation by the appropriate authorities. So, Heritage has a number of 77 examples in 24 years. Does that number surprise you?

PATEL: No, because it's low.

HIMES: I don't -- I don't understand your answer.

PATEL: You asked me if I was surprised by that number. I'm not.

HIMES: Are you disputing -- are you disputing that the number is in the range of 77 examples of non-U.S. citizens voting in U.S. elections in a 24 year period?

BOLDUAN: All right, we're listening in. This is the top Democrat on the committee, Congressman Jim Himes, speaking with the FBI director right now.

One of the topics that is coming up in, as you can hear, is kind of the re-litigation of the 2020 election. Investigations into Georgia's voting systems has been a key line of questioning.

Let's bring in Evan Perez as he's been watching this. And this also comes as, as I was mentioning when we were coming to

you, they are very likely to face additional questions today over the intelligence assessment that was offered or not leading up to the Iran war, given how especially the director of national intelligence yesterday before the Senate was seen as dodging key questions, Evan.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Kate. I mean she -- one of the things she already did in her opening remarks is she skipped over that part of the -- of her prepared remarks that would contradict, or at least have some distance, from the president's claims that the -- that Iran's nuclear program, that the restart of Iran's nuclear program posed an imminent threat. It's the language, essentially, that the intelligence community has found that they didn't really believe, at this point did not assess, that Iran was, again, posing that kind of an imminent threat because of the bombing campaign that happened last summer by the United States and Israel on those nuclear facilities.

[09:20:17]

So, there you see, again, where she's trying to dodge and weave because she understands that some of the intelligence doesn't exactly match the political statements that are being made by Secretary Hegseth, by the president of the United States, as to why they've chosen to launch the current war that we're now in, in Iran. So, we'll see how this hearing goes.

In the Senate yesterday, there were very limited questions, limited answers really, especially from her, that could draw -- give us -- shine a new light really on the intelligence and why there's been this sort of disparate facts that have been coming out from the administration. We expect that this hearing is probably going to be a little more rowdy, as House hearings tend to be. You and I know both -- both have been covering these things over the last few years. But that is really going to be the focus of the -- of the questions I think today, which is, again, why is it that the president and the administration are claiming something that the intelligence doesn't seem to match at this point.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Yes, some clarity on that especially after yesterday is definitely something that a lot of people would like to hear.

It's good to see you, Evan. Thank you so much for being there.

Sara.

BERMAN: I'll take it.

BOLDUAN: Oh, sorry, J.B.

BERMAN: You can call me John today.

BOLDUAN: OK. BERMAN: So, what happened behind closed doors when Attorney General Pam Bondi spoke to lawmakers? We've got the inside account. Plus, will she comply with a congressional subpoena?

The tough decision thousands of TSA employees are facing with the partial government shutdown, go to work without pay or find another way to provide for their families.

And does this look like, wait for it, wait for it -- no, it doesn't look like Kevin Hart to you. Never mind. Theres a picture of -- there we go. There we go. So, does that look like Kevin Hart to you? The comedian does not think so.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:26:42]

BOLDUAN: Prepare to wait. This morning people at airports across the country are facing long -- hours long lines at security for another day. People in Atlanta this morning have faced up to 90-minute wait times to get through. Another day of TSA straining under the pressure of the ongoing partial government shutdown. Workers being forced to work without pay while Congress fails to act, forcing hundreds of workers to quit and forcing many others to call out.

In Syracuse, New York, for example, the airport there hosted a food drive for agents. In Atlanta, the city is giving workers meal vouchers and free parking to try to help. Airports in Las Vegas, Seattle, Denver, they're now asking for donations for workers, including for items like baby formula.

I want to play for you what the transportation secretary said this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN DUFFY, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY: These are men and women who don't make a lot of money. And so, some of them are making choices to go, you know, whether they're driving Uber or, you know, waiting tables, they have to put food on their family's table. And in these places where this is happening, you're seeing really long lines.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: In all, more than 300 TSA agents we've learned have already quit their jobs in the shutdown because they aren't getting paid. That's including Robert Echeverria. He's a father of three. He was a lead TSA officer at the Salt Lake City International Airport. He just had to quit over this shutdown.

And Robert joins me right now.

Thank you so much for being here and just telling us what you've lived through.

You worked for the agency for nearly nine years, Robert, meaning you have been through shutdowns before, especially even in just the last 12 months. What was the last straw for you?

ROBERT ECHEVERRIA, FORMER LEAD TSA OFFICER, SALT LAKE CITY INTL. AIRPORT: I think the last straw is just the whole stress level and the emotional aspect of it. I don't think a lot of people realize how emotional it actually gets. And seeing your family going through hard times and seeing your wife crying herself to sleep every night and how we're going to feed our kids, and how are we going to be able to afford our home, our vehicles, our bills. And as you can tell, most of the shutdowns have happened during the holidays. And so, which makes it even harder.

This last one, it went into almost close to Thanksgiving and Christmas. I mean, we literally actually got sick and that we actually didn't even celebrate Christmas because we were so sick of the stress that we had gone through. And so that was just the last straw.

And when this last one just came through, I just, I needed to put the well-being of my family, of myself before anything else. And I had to -- I had to walk away from something that I loved for so many years.

BOLDUAN: And you really -- what did you like about your job? Because it's -- just to show people how you -- this wasn't something that you wanted to do, was to walk away from this job.

ECHEVERRIA: Exactly. So, I actually -- one, I wasn't able to serve when I was actually younger. I wasn't able to serve in the military. And so, this was actually a way for me to actually do something for my country, Something for me to be out there and make sure that we were safe. And this was actually something -- even though a lot of people think this is very minimal, this was something -- a way for me to give back.

[09:29:56]

BOLDUAN: Talk to me about what -- what are you hearing now from, well, your former colleagues who are still with TSA and working these security checkpoints right now, what are they telling you?