Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Johnson Rejects Senate-Passed DHS Bill, Calls It "A Joke"; White House Releases Memo Directing DHS To Pay TSA Agents Despite Shutdown; Overflow Lines At Atlanta Airport Die Down; Rubio: Expecting Iran's Response To Peace Proposal "At Any Moment"; Trump Delays Attacks On Iranian Energy Sites By 10 Days Amid Talks; NYT: Hegseth Blocks Promotions Of 2 Black And 2 Women Officers. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired March 27, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think to the extent that we are going to get answers about how this administration handled the Epstein disclosures, it's going to be through litigation like this.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Wow. Brendan Ballou, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate you.

A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

Not so Fast: Senate lawmakers had a deal to pay TSA agents and possibly end the agony at U.S. airports and other parts of the Department of Homeland Security. But House Republicans are rejecting that bill. Speaker Johnson calling it a joke. The latest on what comes next.

Plus, President Trump pressing pause while Israel vows to escalate. New questions about whether the two allies have the same goals after nearly four weeks of war with Iran.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And astronauts for NASA's long-anticipated Artemis II mission preparing for the first crewed flight around the moon in more than half a century.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

Breaking news in the fight to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Just last hour, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson railed against the bill that unanimously passed in the Republican-led Senate overnight. Johnson saying, quote, "This gambit that was done last night is a joke." Of course, keep in mind, every single Republican in the Senate signed on to that.

SANCHEZ: The House is now set to pass their own plan, one that top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer has already called dead on arrival. The bottom line, there is no deal in sight and no end in sight to the partial government shutdown. Let's go live to Capitol Hill with CNN's Lauren Fox.

Lauren, take us through what happened. LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, overnight,

the Senate passed their version of this legislation, which would essentially fund everything except ICE and CBP, specifically because Democrats were demanding reforms to immigration enforcement activities around the country, and they just couldn't get to an agreement quickly enough for them to approve some kind of fulsome deal. Therefore, they went ahead and funded what they could agree to.

The Senate left town, and then this morning, Speaker Mike Johnson, facing the ear of a lot of conservatives in his conference who were not happy with what transpired in the Senate overnight, he just announced that they are putting forward their own separate proposal that would fund every part of the Department of Homeland Security, including immigration enforcement by ICE and CBP, for 60 days. This would bring them to mid-May. The problem with this proposal is that it does not have a shot of passing at all in the United States Senate, where you would need Democratic votes and 60 members to agree to it.

We saw in a statement from the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, that they stand opposed to this legislation. Also, lawmakers in the Senate have left town at this point for a two-week recess. So, that leaves us with all eyes on the House. We expect that the House Rules Committee, who deals with procedural votes, they are going to begin processing this around 3:30 this afternoon. It's not clear how quickly they could move on this House Republican proposal.

But again, even if they could pass it in their chamber, there are not the votes to pass it in the Senate. That means that TSA workers are going to have to depend on the White House and the President specifically to pay them at this point, given that there isn't going to be some kind of legislative fix.

I also just want to highlight that Johnson is arguing that he is not supportive of this legislation because it does not fund CBP or ICE immigration enforcement. But the reality is that the President's bill that was passed and signed into law last summer infused millions of dollars for CBP and ICE immigration enforcement that everyone in the Senate, including Republicans, has argued would be plenty of money to keep paying those agents to do their work on immigration enforcement.

So, just an important fact to highlight there, given the fact that Speaker Johnson is arguing that is why he is opposed to this legislation in the Senate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): The Republicans are not going to be a party to this. They have taken hostage the funding processes of government so that they can impose their radical agenda on the American people, and we can't have any part of it. This gambit that was done last night is a joke. I'm quite convinced that -- that it can't be that every Senate Republican read the language of this bill.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: And I just want to point out how much daylight there is right now between Speaker Mike Johnson, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader in the Senate, John Thune. Obviously, these two have a very close working relationship. They're both Republicans. They're both working closely with the President. It was very notable that as Johnson took the podium, he said he had just gotten off the phone with the President of the United States, giving a very clear indication that the President is squarely in his corner when it comes to the resolution that Republicans are putting forward in the House. Very interesting dynamic that's transpired over the course of the last 12 hours.

[15:05:04]

SANCHEZ: Interesting indeed. Lauren Fox on Capitol Hill, thank you so much.

As House Republicans reject this bill, many TSA workers who haven't seen a paycheck in weeks are now waiting to see what's going to happen after President Trump ordered DHS to make sure they are still paid. Speaker Johnson earlier said that the machinery of the executive order was now sort of working its way through the system. In Atlanta, some progress was made today in terms of wait times, though.

KEILAR: CNN's Ryan Young is there.

Ryan, what seems to be working there?

RYAN YOUNG, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: A lot for right now. First of all, I think we should be concerned based upon what we just heard, because there are so many people today who thought this was all over, and they started to see the impact here at the lines. Some people have waited as little as four minutes to get through security. That's back to the old times that it's gone through today.

But we did have lines earlier this morning. That rush hour, that initial rush hour, was strong. In fact, we'll show you some of that video from about 6:30, 7:00 this morning where the lines actually wrapped around the inside and went outside again. People waiting in line for two hours. People getting here very early before their flights to try to make it through security.

But we also talked to TSA representatives who were saying they felt like this was finally the break they were going to get. The workers could feel comfortable coming back to work. But that all almost seems for naught now. But take a listen to the TSA union representative talking about what they thought was going to happen today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE BOREK, TSA UNION STEWARD: Until this is over, because we're still not going to know what officers come back. So, certainly, I would say, you know, listen to the airlines. You know, listen to what they're telling you. If they're telling you to get here two, three hours, four hours before, certainly, you know, do that. Because again, it's going to take a couple days before we get back to some type of normalcy. You know, my guess -- my estimate from last time it's going to

probably be a week, you know. So, but -- but then the fallout is we don't know who's coming back. So, if we're short, it's going to have an impact to how -- how we do our jobs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YOUNG: Yes, that was before the announcement. Something I want to stress here, there will be a -- basically, a food drive for TSA workers that's happening today and tomorrow. They're at the point where they are taking those food donations, showing up to get food because they've been so short.

And I'm walking down this way right now. You can see the two officers who are doing their patrol. But down here, you can see the TSA agents who are still at work. But the concern has been for so many, Sunday is a busy day. It was so packed here last Sunday that pretty much for 24 straight hours, it took over an hour for people to get through security.

Well, what happens now that the reflection here becomes that they find out they may not be getting paid anytime soon. And on top of that, earlier today, over and over again, people were making their voices heard that they were upset with Congress. They were tired of the fact that they weren't being paid. And they didn't understand why politics was being played with their paychecks and their lives.

If you look right now, you can see ICE agent working behind the counter, working with the TSA agent. But the conversation now, how long will this continue and how long will travelers have to feel this pain, guys?

KEILAR: Longer. That is the problem here. Ryan Young, thank you for that report from Atlanta.

Still to come, Israel is vowing to escalate strikes on Iran as President Trump says the U.S. will hold off on targeting energy sites for 10 days. We have the latest.

SANCHEZ: Plus, new CNN reporting on how Iran-linked hackers breached the personal emails of FBI Director Kash Patel.

And later, NASA astronauts reporting for duty at Kennedy Space Center ahead of their historic moon mission. That and much more coming your way on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:13:09]

SANCHEZ: Now to the major breaking news we're following in the Middle East. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters a short time ago that he was expecting Iran's response to a U.S. peace proposal at any moment. The Trump administration has offered Tehran a 15-point plan to end the war, and this comes as the two sides could potentially begin face-to-face negotiations in the near future. At the same time, the U.S. is sending thousands of troops to the

Middle East. Though Secretary Rubio says that Iranian military capabilities can be destroyed without putting any American troops on the ground. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: We can achieve, we are achieving all those objectives. We are ahead of schedule on most of them, and we can achieve them without any ground troops, without any.

Now, in terms of why there's deployments, number one, the President has to be prepared for multiple contingencies, which I'm not going to discuss in the media. And again, I refer you to the Department of War who will probably tell you the exact same thing. But we can achieve all of our objectives without ground troops, but we are always going to be prepared to give the President maximum optionality and maximum opportunity to adjust to contingencies should they emerge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: With us now to discuss, Steven A. Cook. He's a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Steven, thanks so much for being with us.

The administration's state of objectives with Iran have been somewhat fluid, right? But based on some of the most consistent ones that we've heard, specifically the question of preventing further uranium enrichment, can the U.S. do that without actually getting its hands on that enriched uranium that Tehran possesses? In other words, don't we need boots on the ground to do that?

STEVEN A. COOK, SENIOR FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST STUDIES, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, it's certainly the case that the President is skeptical that you can have a -- constrain Iran's nuclear program by negotiation. So, if you're not going to do it from the air, there's really only one way to do it, which is to go in and get the highly enriched uranium.

[15:15:02]

SANCHEZ: And that would further embroil the United States in -- in -- at the very least, a very risky operation, and if not, a protracted engagement with Iran, would it not?

COOK: It certainly would. Look, the -- where -- the highly enriched uranium is believed to be -- is not an easy place for American forces to get in and to get out without a lot of potential trouble for them. So, this is why the President keeps moving his objectives. He's not really sure. He's looking for the leverage. He's not really sure which one he can settle on. We've got this talk of negotiations. We've got this movement of U.S. troops, one or the other.

The President listens to his gut, and wherever his gut tells him to land, that's where we're going to be. SANCHEZ: Yes, there's also the question of who exactly the U.S. is

going to be negotiating with. And as Rubio was talking about the expected response, he also said, straightforwardly, we're waiting for clarification about who on the other side is going to provide this rejection, acceptance, modification to the 15-point plan. Who do you imagine it might be?

COOK: Well, everybody's been focusing on the speaker of the Iranian Parliament.

SANCHEZ: Right.

COOK: We don't really know exactly who is in charge of it. The Israelis have done quite an efficient job of decapitating this regime, and then some. So, he seems to be the focal point of this negotiation, but if you look at the U.S. 15 points, it doesn't seem like anybody who's in charge in Tehran would agree to any of those points.

SANCHEZ: Yes, they're both very far apart, right?

COOK: That's right. Yes.

SANCHEZ: I -- I want to ask you about some of those details, but you -- you mentioned Israel's ability to decapitate figures within the regime. I do wonder if you see any daylight between Trump saying that he would pause attacks, specifically on energy facilities, as these negotiations play out, and Israel seeming to target more and more of those facilities. Do you think that the two sides of -- or the -- the two parties on the same side have different objectives?

COOK: Well, it seems clear from the very beginning of this conflict that although there's been unprecedented military cooperation between Israel and the United States, the Israelis have definitely a different strategic objective here, which is to weaken this regime as much as possible. And as the President has talked about in negotiation, the Israelis have shifted some of their operations against the Iranians from the military and the instruments of repression in Iran to economic targets.

SANCHEZ: There's also Israel claiming that they, or claiming responsibility, I should say, that they -- or claiming responsibility I should say that they attacked two Iranian nuclear facilities. The IAEA, the U.S. watchdog, was very concerned about possible radiological catastrophe. I mean, does this give you an idea of where the conflict might be heading if we see more of this?

COOK: Well, it seems clear that the Israelis have an objective that is to weaken the regime, as I just said. As -- they don't trust, though, that the President is going to see this conflict through, given all of this discussion about negotiation. So, they are now shifting their attention to do as much damage before the President of the United States calls the Israeli Prime Minister and says, call it off.

SANCHEZ: Back to the 15-point plan versus the demands that we heard from Tehran, an enormous gulf, right? You -- you have the U.S. saying, stop funding any proxies, and then Iran saying that Israel has to stop attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon. How do you bridge the gap, just on that issue of proxies alone?

COOK: It doesn't seem like that gap is bridgeable. Perhaps these are just opening positions and that the -- through the process of negotiation, the United States and Iran will get closer and closer, but it seems clear that the United States is asking essentially for unconditional surrender and the Iranians are saying, we're never going to do that.

SANCHEZ: Yes, the other question that Iran had posed was the idea of some form of reparation for the amount of damage that's been done in this conflict. Is there any way you see Donald Trump acquiescing to that demand?

COOK: I think this is a perfect example of how far apart the sides are. I don't think the question of reparations is ever going to come into any serious consideration in this White House or any White House.

SANCHEZ: Lastly, there is concern about possible escalation and a similar approach from Tehran that we've seen in the Strait of Hormuz, but over in the Red Sea and essentially the -- giving the -- the go command to the Houthis in Yemen. How serious a threat is that and -- and do you see, why do you think that they haven't used that, they haven't pulled that lever yet?

COOK: Right, it's a really good question. The Houthis are not Hezbollah. They are not really at the beck and call of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. They have demonstrated their own autonomy, but they've also demonstrated an ability to harass shipping in the Red Sea. So, if the Iranians are actually working with the Houthis still and holding them in reserve, this is a very significant risk.

The Houthis have proven they've been able to do it. They've proven they've been able to withstand both American and Israeli strikes. So, as this war continues, there is always the possibility that we'll see two choke points, the Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz.

SANCHEZ: And then you can see the cost of everything just completely skyrocket because those are two very important points for the world economy.

COOK: Exactly.

SANCHEZ: Steven A. Cook, thank you so much for chatting with us.

COOK: Thanks for having me.

[15:20:06]

SANCHEZ: Of course. Still plenty more news to come this afternoon. Reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is taking the unusual step of blocking the promotion of four Army officers and concerns about why these officers specifically are being singled out. We'll explain in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [15:24:59]

KEILAR: New today, the New York Times is reporting that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unilaterally is blocking the promotion of four army officers to the rank of brigadier general or one-star general and that some senior military officials are questioning whether the officers are being singled out because of their race or gender.

The officials tell the Times, quote, "Two of the officers targeted by Mr. Hegseth are black and two are women on a promotion list that consists of about three dozen officers, most of whom are white men." We're joined now by retired Army Brigadier General Ty Seidule. He is the author of the book, "A Promise Delivered: Ten American Heroes and the Battle to Rename Our Nation's Military Bases."

General, thanks for being with us on this really important topic here.

How unusual is it for a defense secretary to do something like this?

BRIG. GEN. TY SEIDULE, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Thanks, Erin. I don't think it's ever happened. It's not like this, but it's worrisome, but not surprising. Hegseth promised to go after generals in his book, "The War on Warriors," believe them when they write something. And his vitriol toward generals was they are, quote, "cowards, hiding under stars," and they are, quote, "whores to wokesters."

This is really a problem because the politicization of promotion process is bad for the long-term health of the military. It erodes trust, challenges the meritocratic and apolitical nature of our military. He's fired over two dozen generals and admirals, including many women and black officers, with no explanation. And that is really, really a problem.

And listen, we should understand this wasn't a problem before. I had a good friend who served on 18 promotion boards, and no one ever talked about race and gender. He is finding a problem that we never had before.

KEILAR: He talks a lot about prioritizing war fighting. And when you look at the individuals who The Times reports he unilaterally struck from this list, one is a black armor officer and combat veteran singled out because of writing a paper 15 years ago looking at why African-American officers historically have opted for support jobs over frontline combat positions. Another is a female logistics officer who had served in the Afghanistan withdrawal.

I reported a few months ago about a female Navy captain, highly qualified. She was a former SEAL Team 6 member whose command overseeing Navy SEALs was actually scuttled. And the consensus among officials there in the Navy special warfare community was that it was because Hegseth did not want a woman fronting that role. I wonder if there is a concern that Hegseth's personnel moves could actually be having the opposite effect of what he says he's actually about.

SEIDULE: Brianna, I'm sorry. Yes, that's absolutely true. So, the military is the most meritocratic institution in the country, and it's also the most diverse. We have 43 percent of our soldiers are from minority backgrounds, 21 percent black soldiers, and yet they're only 8 percent black generals. Women are 21 -- 20 percent of soldiers, only 8 percent of generals. And we need a diverse officer corps to lead a diverse military.

A black general shows young black officers they have a chance, same for women. We've got to remember, it's inspiration, we've also got to remember that white men make up the overwhelming majority of generals. This is not a place where white men are excluded. In fact, in certain things like armor, infantry, or in the Navy in certain jobs, it's overwhelmingly white men.

So, the idea that we're not giving them a fair shake after they've gone through the system is just horrible. Remember, only 5 percent of -- of colonels are selected to brigadier general. The hardest cut in the Army, and to make that a political position goes against everything that the Army stands for. And it -- and it's really disheartening to think about what that means to those who are serving right now knowing that. It's -- it's heartbreaking.

KEILAR: What's the message that this sends to cadets or to young officers who are women or who are of color as they are thinking about what their careers might look like in the military?

SEIDULE: Yes, this is a great point. Because they're being told that if you look like me, that you're not a black man or a woman, that you're not going to have the same opportunities. It's always been harder for black men and for black soldiers and for women to rise to the highest ranks. All you have to do is look at the combatant commanders and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they're almost all white men.

So, the idea that you would have some representation in there is a sense of who we are as American. I find what he's doing un-American, and it's going to hurt our long-term recruiting. It's going to hurt us retain the best talent possible, and it's just unfair to those officers. So, I hope that the White House will restore that as they should, as what The Times reporting that the Secretary of the Army is fighting for those officers. That's the right thing to do. That's what we do in the military. It's what we do as Americans.

KEILAR: Because if they don't restore that, just really quickly, it's not like a normal job, right, in the civilian world. It's not like, oh, you were passed over for a promotion, maybe you get another shot next year.

[15:30:03]

This if -- this effectively ends their careers, right?

SEIDULE: You can't go serve in another army.