Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
House Hearing with U.S. Intel Chiefs; Journalist Shares New Texts from War Group Chat. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired March 26, 2025 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST (voice-over): Well, hello and welcome to our viewers all around the world to special coverage of breaking news here on
CNN. I'm Becky Anderson in Abu Dhabi. Time here is 6 p.m.
This hour, top White House intelligence officials are back on Capitol Hill. At 10 am there, appearing at a House hearing, set to start any moment now.
This just after the latest bombshell reporting in "The Atlantic," which, less than two hours ago, published texts of the chat by top White House
officials that discuss attack plans for Houthi rebels in Yemen.
"The Atlantic's" editor in chief was accidentally added to that chat. The texts reveal specific information on attack times and other operational
details. "The Atlantic" said it made the decision to publish those texts after president Trump and top White House officials repeatedly insisted
they did not contain classified information.
I'm joined now by CNN's Zach Cohen, CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen and Republican strategist Doug Heye.
And we are waiting for this hearing to start. And when it does, we will get straight to it, folks.
But let's start with you, Zach. Before it does, walk us through what we are learning now from this latest "Atlantic" report that dropped a couple of
hours ago and your new reporting, if you will.
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, the first thing is sources confirming and contradicting what Donald Trump and what
several of his senior advisers have said in the last couple of days, that these messages did not contain any classified information.
Our sources are saying the opposite, that the information, particularly disclosed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, was highly classified at the
time that he wrote it. So that includes what's in these messages as being a detailed timeline of the prestrike and in the moment of the strike.
Operational details, including details about weapons, which weapons were used and specific targets. So this really is something that will
undoubtedly come up during today's hearing.
Both John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, and Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, just yesterday, said that, to the best of their
recollection, these messages contain no classified information. We now know that they did.
ANDERSON: And that hearing that you alluded to yesterday was the Senate intelligence hearing. And we are now looking at the chairman of the House,
the lower chamber, the House Intelligence Committee getting set to hear testimony once again from those two characters, John Ratcliffe and Tulsi
Gabbard.
It was a bruising session yesterday for them both.
Peter, before we get to it -- and I will move straight to Capitol Hill as soon as we get this started -- let's just bring up these newly published
operational messages from Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense.
And you can see in the -- in the timeline here of attack plans, Mike Waltz downplaying what we are now seeing published here, saying, no locations, no
sources and methods, no war plans were discussed in this chat group.
What's your reaction now to what we're seeing?
PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, they're clearly war plans because it's a very detailed accounting of a four-hour operation
beginning -- it starts at 11:44 am is when it confirms that the operation is a go. And it goes on to 15:36 when it talks about Tomahawk, sea-based
Tomahawk missiles being launched.
So it's basically a four-hour presentation of the war plan.
(CROSSTALK)
ANDERSON: OK, apologies, Peter. Peter, I'm going to jump in if you don't mind and we'll get straight to Capitol Hill. Stand by.
REP. RICK CRAWFORD (R-AR): -- most of their time. While I will address this topic further in my questions, it's my sincere hope that we use this
hearing to discuss the many foreign threats facing our nation.
I have deep concerns about the state of our national security. The war between Russia and Ukraine has just surpassed three years and now includes
North Korean troops on the battlefield.
Iran remains the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, supporting terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East like Hezbollah and
Hamas, fueling the latter's war with Israel in Gaza.
The threat of the Chinese Communist Party or CCC -- CCP has metastasized worldwide, expanding a robust military and espionage capability well beyond
the Pacific, including here within the Western Hemisphere.
[10:05:02]
The CCP's aggressiveness into operations below the level of armed conflict continues to grow. For example, they have sponsored cyber attacks against
the United States' critical infrastructure and even recruited a New York State governor's office -- or employee into being an undisclosed agent of
the CCP.
And after four years of a catastrophic open-border policy and limited and in many cases, no vetting, we have seen an explosion of illegal migrants
crossing our border since 2021. In fiscal year 2024, 516 were identified to be known or suspected terrorists, 106 of whom tried to sneak into our
country between ports of entry.
And these are just the ones we caught of the nearly-three million encounters recorded by Customs and Border Protection.
We've also seen an ISIS-affiliated human smuggling network bringing more than 400 migrants into the United States and this occurs through networks
associated with cartels and gangs, from Sinaloa to CJNG, who present an unacceptable risk to the security of the American people.
In the midst of such threats, many have understandably lost trust in the intelligence community. One reason I'm particularly concerned about is a
pattern of lapses I've seen in analytic integrity and objectivity in some of the assessments provided by the IC in the last few years.
From President Trump, Russia collusion fiasco, to the origins of the COVID- 19 pandemic, to anomalous health incidents, there have been numerous instances of the IC suppressing certain reporting, using substandard
reporting to support a pre-decided thesis and failure or refusal to consider plausible alternative analyses.
That, combined with many other examples of weaponized government, results in a situation where the United States is facing very real threats, while
many of our citizens lack trust in those they empower to inform on or counter these threats.
Look, I've been honored to serve our country for many years now, first as an explosive ordnance disposal technician in the Army, now as a
representative for the First District of Arkansas and chairman of this committee.
In my time here, I've traveled the world and met with countless IC employees, from everyday Americans doing challenging and often dangerous
work of intelligence, to agencies' directors like yourselves.
The vast majority of those people are honest, hardworking, patriotic Americans that silently and without accolades do different -- difficult
jobs, often in austere places, sacrificing time with their families and in some cases, putting themselves in danger, all in order to serve the United
States.
These silent warriors deserve our gratitude and our respect. They do not deserve to have their reputations besmirched by poor leadership.
Unfortunately, in recent years, we've seen instances of politicized, self- serving, dishonest leaders sustaining the reputation of our institutions and patriots by abusing the powers and sacred trust given to them by the
American people.
We have some real work to do. You, in your roles as leaders of prestigious organizations and us, as members of this committee charged with conducting
honest and rigorous oversight, must ensure that our institutions work for the American people. Those that don't uphold the stringent standards of
integrity that the American people expect and deserve must be held accountable.
In the instances where trust is breached, those involved must be held accountable. This help of -- this will help rebuild the trust between the
American people and those that serve them in the Intelligence Community.
Today, we need you to be candid about the threats facing the United States. I have deep concerns that many threats have been downplayed or not taken
seriously enough for some time, particularly in the homeland and the Western Hemisphere. I look forward to hearing your assessment.
Thank you again to our witnesses for being here today.
And with that, I want to yield to the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Himes, for his opening statement.
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning and welcome to our witnesses. As the chairman said, this hearing is an important opportunity for our committee and the American
people to hear directly from the senior leadership of the intelligence community about the threats that our nation faces.
I read the unclassified report and I found a lot of -- a lot of continuity in the IC's assessment about critical threats to our national security
compared to last year's assessment. The IC continues to see threats from our principal adversaries, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
I must say though that, after these last two months, I'm worried that the call may be coming from inside the house.
This report calls Russia, and I quote, "an enduring potential threat to U.S. power, presence and global interests."
But as far as I can tell, we're now on team Kremlin. We vote with them and against our allies in the United Nations. We humiliate President Zelenskyy
in the Oval Office. The president's chief Russia negotiator Steve Witkoff is repeating Russian talking points and participating on a mad cap Signal
chat about an attack on Yemen while inside Russia.
USAID is gone and with it all American soft power. If I had time, I would ask the generals at this table about what it means to our national security
to give up our soft power.
[10:10:00]
We're no longer helping struggling nations in Africa. China or, worse, terrorists are filling the vacuum. I wonder how many of those African
countries will be named in next year's threat assessment.
Thanks to DOGE, the men we paid to guard the most vicious ISIS terrorists in the world in Syria walked off the job.
Do you think we'll see their names in this document next year?
Elon Musk fired the people who maintain our nuclear weapons.
Does that feel like a threat to you?
Apparently, all of this mayhem is cheered by the president of the United States and by 20-somethings with laptops and nicknames like Big Balls. But
I've been doing this for a long time and I know that Moscow and Beijing and Tehran and Pyongyang cannot believe their luck.
Now we come to learn that people in the most dangerous and sensitive jobs on the planet put extremely specific pre-decisional discussions about a
military attack on Signal which could be intercepted by the Russians and the Chinese.
Everyone here knows that the Russians or the Chinese could have gotten all of that information and they could have passed it on to the Houthis who
easily could have repositioned weapons and altered their plans to knock down planes or sink ships. I think that it's by the awesome grace of God
that we are not mourning dead pilots right now.
The two general officers sitting at the table and the people who work for all of you know that, if they had set up and participated in the Signal
chat, they would be gone.
And they know that there's only one response to a mistake of this magnitude -- you apologize, you own it and you stop everything until you can figure
out what went wrong and how it might not ever happen again.
But that's not what happened. The Secretary of Defense responded with a brutal attack on the reporter who did not ask to be on the Signal chain.
Yesterday, our former colleague, Mike Waltz, did the same in the White House and then went on FOX to call Jeff Goldberg a loser.
What do you think the people who work for you are seeing and learning from that?
Now except for that last part, almost all of the mayhem slowly eroding our safety, our standing and our security in the world has largely happened
outside the IC. If you had a part in that, and I suspect you did, I thank you.
I'll say it now and I'll say it again, every time we see each other over the next couple of years, you must protect the thousands of patriots who go
to work every day under you to keep us safe. You need to go to work every day thinking about their morale, their wellbeing and their protection.
I've done intelligence oversight for more than a decade. It's my job to ask you the tough questions and maybe even make you uncomfortable.
But John, I don't ever walk through your lobby and look at those 140 stars on the wall without choking up over the fact that men and women far better
than I will give their lives to keep us safe.
There's about a dozen people in this room who know all their stories. And you know and I know that many of the men and women who have stars on that
wall died because of bad decisions or poor judgment by their leaders.
We've all worked together before and recent events notwithstanding, we need you to succeed. Your people and our safety requires you to succeed. I
really hope you do.
But let me say now that, if some over-caffeinated 20-year old succeeds in firing your linguists or your mathematicians or your paramilitary officers,
if you shut down some unit because Steve Bannon or Seb Gorka doesn't like it, America will be less safe and people will get hurt. And I and this
committee and history will be very unkind.
Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
CRAWFORD: Gentleman yields.
Gentleman yields. Now recognize director Gabbard to make a statement on behalf of the intelligence community.
TULSI GABBARD, U.S. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Thank you very much, chairman Crawford and ranking member Himes, members of the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity for us to be here to present the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment. I'm joined here by my colleagues from the CIA, DIA, FBI
and NSA.
Our testimony today offers the collective assessment of the 18 U.S. intelligence elements making up the U.S. intelligence community.
[10:15:00]
And draws on the intelligence collection and information available to the IC from open source and private sector and the expertise of our analysts.
It evaluates what the excesses most threatens our people and our nation's ability to live in a peaceful, free, secure and prosperous society. As you
know very well, we face an increasingly complex threat environment that is threatening us here at home and our interests abroad.
I'll begin by focusing on what most immediately and directly threatens the United States and the well-being of the American people, the non-state
criminal groups and terrorists putting American lives and livelihood at risk.
I'll then move on to focus on the key nation states who have the capability to threaten our security and the interests of the United States.
Cartels, gangs and other transnational criminal organizations in our part of the world are engaging in a wide array of illicit activity, from
narcotics trafficking to money laundering to smuggling of illegal immigrants and human trafficking, which endanger the health, welfare and
safety of everyday Americans.
Based on our latest reporting available, for the year-long period ending October 2024, cartels were largely responsible for the deaths of more than
54,000 American citizens due to synthetic opioids.
Mexico-based transnational criminal organizations are the main suppliers of illicit fentanyl to the U.S. market and are quickly adapting to enforcement
and regulatory pressures by using multiple sources and methods to procure precursor chemicals and equipment.
Primarily from China and India, many of which are dual use chemicals used in legitimate industries.
Independent fentanyl producers are also increasingly fragmenting the drug trade in Mexico. The ready availability of precursor chemicals and ease of
making illicit fentanyl have enabled independent actors to increase illicit fentanyl production and smuggling operations in Mexico.
Cartels are profiting from human trafficking and have likely facilitated more than 2 million illegal immigrants encountered by law enforcement at
the U.S. southwest border in 2024 alone, straining our vital resources and putting the American people at risk.
Criminal groups drive much of the unrest and lawlessness in the Western Hemisphere. They also engage in extortion, weapons and human smuggling and
other illicit and dangerous revenue-seeking operations, including kidnapping for ransom, forced labor and sex trafficking.
While some of these key drivers of migrants are expected to persist, heightened U.S. border security enforcement and deportations under the
Trump administration are proving to serve as a deterrent for migrants seeking to illegally cross our borders.
U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions along the southwest border in January 2025 dropped 85 percent from the same period in 2024.
Transnational Islamist extremists such as ISIS and Al Qaeda and affiliated jihadi groups continue to pursue, enable or inspire attacks against the
United States and our citizens abroad and within the homeland to advance their ultimate objective of establishing a global Islamist caliphate.
This includes heightened efforts to spread their ideology, to recruit and radicalize individuals in the U.S. and the West. While the New Year's Day
attacker in New Orleans had no known direct contact with ISIS terrorists, he was influenced and radicalized by ISIS ideological propaganda as one
example.
Al Qaeda and its affiliates continue to call for attacks against the United States as they conduct attacks overseas. These jihadist groups have shown
their ability --
ANDERSON: Well, you're listening to Tulsi Gabbard, who is the Director of National Intelligence. She is presenting testimony similar to that which
she presented yesterday to the Senate intelligence group. She is now presenting that information in front of the House.
The House lawmakers on the Intelligence Committee, just before this, the ranking member, the Democrat on that committee, said the following, "It is
by the awesome grace of God that we are not mourning dead pilots by now."
And, of course, he was referring to the sharing of classified war plans on a Signal chat group that was attended by journalist Jeff Goldberg, who has
now published the contents of that chat, the contents of which the Trump officials have said was not classified.
And that is the reason, Jeff Goldberg says, that he went ahead and published it. Let me bring in my panel, Doug Heye, Peter Bergen and Zach
Cohen still with us.
[10:20:00]
Peter, I just want to get your response to the sort of opening statements that we've just heard here from the House Intelligence Committee.
BERGEN: I thought the important thing that Jim Himes, the ranking -- the Democratic member of the committee, said, he pointed out that there have
been a number of reports that Steve Witkoff, who is the Russia envoy and Ukraine and Middle East envoy for Trump, was in Russia at the time when
these group chats were happening.
Of course, the Russians would have a very strong interest in getting inside Steve Witkoff's phone. And really the whole -- I think the discussion of
classified information here is a little bit of a red herring. The president can decide what's classified as unknown or unclassified.
So Pete Hegseth, by the way, although, you know, he could sort of retrospectively say all those war plans weren't classified. But, of course,
that's nonsensical really. Any war plan is highly sensitive. You shouldn't share it with anybody. It shouldn't be accessible to anybody.
And now we have the details of the war plan. And it's a war plan, laid out in quite considerable detail. So you know, it's going to be hard for the
other people in this group chat; you know, Pete Hegseth is the one who's sharing all the information that really is the most sensitive.
Other people are chiming in with, you know, political comments or discussing whether or not this is a smart idea. But it's really Pete
Hegseth who's putting out the detailed information.
ANDERSON: Doug. And apologies for mispronouncing your surname, sir. Doug, let me bring you in here. So one of the things that Himes said was that,
you apologize; in a situation like this, you own what has happened and you go about trying to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
That is not what has happened here. And he talked about sort of the mayhem that is, as he described it, slowing and eroding the U.S.' standing in the
world.
And he implored the IC community, headed up by these two who are providing testimony today, to sort of get their house in order and to ensure that
mistakes like this aren't made again. He said this has happened mostly outside of the intelligence community. But I wonder what you what you make
of what we've heard so far.
DOUG HEYE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Sure. Well, first off, Becky, you can call me anything you want as long as you call me. So thank you very
much for that.
But look, I look at this as very much a communications matter. And I think what congressman Himes described, a lot of which I agree with, fall under
for what Republicans now are the old rules of how you communicate.
Under Donald Trump we know, you never acknowledge, you never apologize. You just keep moving forward as fast as possible. The challenge for whether
it's Tim Walz (sic) or anybody else in this process, Pete Hegseth as well, certainly, is that it was very clear that that Jeffrey Goldberg was
choosing what he was going to release and how.
So by denying all of this yesterday, we all knew -- anybody who's been through any sort of circumstance, even though we've never seen anything
quite like this, there's more to come. So doing what Himes said is what traditionally you would do.
But in a Donald Trump Republican Party, the conversations that are private and the conversations that are public are often very different things.
What's going to be interesting to me is to see what Republicans now say, because we've gotten more info. That makes it very clear that not everybody
who has tried to deny this yesterday has been entirely accurate, whether intentional or not.
ANDERSON: So what do you expect to happen next?
HEYE: Well, look, again, under normal circumstances, somebody would lose their job. That might be Waltz. That might be Hegseth. You know, Donald
Trump doesn't operate under the normal rules.
And, you know, as a political matter, what I would tell you, Becky, is, if this were the Biden administration, the RNC would provide no quarter.
Republicans on Congress would provide no quarter for any of this. We would be calling for not a head to roll but multiple heads to roll.
And I say that because I was the communications director at Republican National Committee. I would have written the statement calling for those
resignations.
If I'm a Republican advising Donald Trump right now, if I'm in senior leadership on the House or the Senate, I would tell Trump, the best thing
that you can do is to get rid of one of these people to send a message throughout your administration that these kinds of mistakes won't be
tolerated.
Because ultimately, politically, this is a problem for Donald Trump more than it is anybody else who was on that text chain.
ANDERSON: In the first 24 hours of this being exposed, Peter, and before Jeffrey Goldberg and "The Atlantic" magazine went ahead and published sort
of most of what he has.
[10:25:00]
And Donald Trump had described or had sort of denigrated, insulted the journalist in the first instance. And then he said, look, in two months,
this is our first glitch and it's not even a very important one.
That gives us some indication of the way that Donald Trump is thinking about this. I mean, this is about messaging at the end of the day and how
he deals with it. Clearly, within that answer, he was, you know, providing a message of sorts.
How did you respond when you first heard that?
BERGEN: Well, I listened to that press conference that he gave pretty carefully. And as Doug points out, you know, there's always a day two for
this kind of story. If you -- and, you know, its kind of Coms 101 to try and get ahead of the story rather than be behind.
Now when Donald Trump publicly said that Jeff Goldberg is a sleazebag multiple times, which, of course, he is actually a very reputable, serious
journalist, and then a bunch of his cabinet officials said none of the information was war plans or classified, I mean, that was sort of a red
flag to a bull.
And it was entirely predictable that Goldberg, would, after all these administration officials saying nothing classified, so why not just go
ahead and publish it?
So now you have the story continuing today. And, you know, I think, you know, Mike Waltz was given a very spirited defense by Donald Trump during
the press conference that he gave yesterday. I think Mike will survive.
Mike is a serious human being. He's made a mistake, as he admitted himself. And, you know, I think Trump, as a general proposition, is inclined to, you
know, combat the media.
And I actually don't think that that, you know, as Doug sort of alluded to, I don't think heads will roll. But clearly, but interestingly, Trump and
his press conference did say we're going to investigate this.
And by the way, these -- and this is Trump himself -- these sorts of discussions should happen in the Situation Room or a SCIF, not on sort of,
you know, on your phone, even on an encrypted app. So the president himself has said that, you know, this wasn't smart.
ANDERSON: I'm going to take a break at this point. Stay with me. This hearing continues.
And just before I go to break, I just want to quote what the ranking member on the committee, the Democrat, of course, a, you know, a critic of this
Trump administration. What he said, though, "Almost all of the mayhem that is slowly eroding U.S.
standing in our world is largely outside the intelligence community," he said.
He went on to say, "We are now, it seems, as the U.S. on team Kremlin. U.S. aid has gone and with it all of our soft power. Musk has fired the men who
maintain U.S. nuclear weapons. Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang cannot believe their luck."
I wonder whether our panel believes that that is a fair assessment of where the U.S. stands at present, as we continue to keep an eye on what is going
on in this intelligence hearing. We're going to be back after this quick break. Stay with us.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: Well, we're back with special coverage of breaking news here on CNN. Tulsi Gabbard is -- Tulsi Gabbard, the U.S. Director of National
Intelligence, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee. Let's listen in.
GABBARD: -- yesterday on this issue. As a result of that pending litigation, I'm limited in my ability to comment further on that specific
case.
[10:30:05]
My Office of General Counsel will be in close contact with the Department of Justice on this matter.
The most important thing to the American people and to all of us is the success of this military operation against terrorists who have been and
continue to attack American service members, was extremely successful, thanks to the leadership of president Trump and the actions of our brave
men and women in uniform.
As the heads of the American people's intelligence community, we will continue to provide the president, you and Congress and our warfighters
with timely, unbiased, relevant intelligence to keep our country secure, free, prosperous and at peace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CRAWFORD: Thank you, director Gabbard. We now turn to member questions. I'll recognize myself for five minutes.
I want to talk about, before I get into the threats, I want to talk about something we've talked about in this committee and in this setting before.
We've had IC agency leaders commit to complying with our document requests but not follow through.
I don't know if this is due to direction from previous administration or middle management obstruction but I find it completely unacceptable. In
fact, I had to subpoena the NSA in order to cooperate with our AHI (ph) investigation last year.
As you all know, it's the charge of this committee to conduct rigorous oversight. And part of that oversight is that it occasionally requires us
that we request documents from your organizations to enable our investigations. We cannot adequately do our jobs without your partnership
and your cooperation.
General Haugh and General Kruse, we had this conversation here before last year and I'm not satisfied with your responsiveness. Therefore, I'm going
to ask that question again on the record in this open setting to each of you.
Do I have your unequivocal commitment to cooperating with document or other information requests from this committee, General Haugh?
LT. GEN. TIMOTHY HAUGH, COMMANDER, U.S. CYBER COMMAND; DIRECTOR, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY: You do, Chairman.
CRAWFORD: Thank you, General.
Director Patel?
KASH PATEL, DIRECTOR, U.S. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: You do, Mr. Chairman.
CRAWFORD: Director Gabbard?
GABBARD: Yes, Chairman.
CRAWFORD: Director Ratcliffe?
JOHN RATCLIFFE, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Yes, you do, Chairman and Ranking Member.
And I want to start by saying it's good to be back. It's good to see you. And as you all know, I have a special appreciation for the work that this
committee does, having previously been a member.
I also understand the importance of the oversight role that it has. And so you have my full commitment and my understanding about what your
responsibilities are and my obligation to keep you fully and currently informed. And I will do that.
CRAWFORD: Appreciate that.
General Kruse.
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JEFFREY KRUSE, DIRECTOR, U.S. DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Chairman, of course, you have our continuing support on this
critically important effort for the nation.
CRAWFORD: Thank you, I appreciate that.
I want to turn now to something that's a topic of conversation and really needs to be and that's our own neighborhood here in our Western Hemisphere.
I mentioned my opening statement. I'm deeply concerned about encroachment in the Western Hemisphere, not just by China but other adversaries like
Russia and Iran, from Russian military cooperation with and support to Venezuela and Nicaragua, CCP-linked companies' acquisition of critical
assets in Central and South America.
Iran's defense agreement with Bolivia; the establishment of a technical military cooperation commission including Venezuela, Cuba, China, Russia
and Iran. And I could list several more alarming examples.
I'm afraid we focus so much of our attention across the world that we've lost sight of our own neighborhood, leading to the anti-American regimes
gaining permanent footholds within striking distance of the homeland.
So director Gabbard, to the extent that you can discuss it in this setting, what is the intelligence community's assessment of adversary encroachment
in the Western Hemisphere?
GABBARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We'll be able to go into greater detail in the closed session. But the intelligence community assessment reflects what you have just detailed and
outlined.
The continued competition, encroachment and investments that are occurring in the Western Hemisphere have rapidly increased and continue to pose a
threat both to our economic interests and to our security.
Every day there are new reports of further attempts. One just recently that came up yesterday with investments that are being made in the southeast
part of the United States. Again, I'll go into this further in a closed setting.
But the intelligence assessments that we are receiving are being shared with senior cabinet officials, Department of Energy, Commerce, Treasury,
those who are working alongside us to not only monitor but to determine the best policies that will protect our interests.
CRAWFORD: Thank you.
I want to turn to director Patel real quick in the time that I have left. If you can flesh this out for me just a little bit, you indicated something
that caught my attention in the proceeding yesterday.
[10:35:03]
And that was your involvement with the judicial drug task force that you partner with at the state level and how that has yielded positive results
with regard to cartel activity.
Can you can you put a little finer point on that, to describe those partnerships in the 53 seconds we have remaining?
PATEL: Yes, I'll try to be brief. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vice Chairman, thanks for having us. Ranking Member.
My priorities at the FBI have been to partner with state and local law enforcement in ways that we have not done so before, particularly on
information sharing. And it's a two-way street.
And in order for us to effectuate drug seizures and narcotics interdictions in the 50 states, we treat them as all border states, because that's what's
happening. We have an American citizen die of a drug overdose every seven minutes.
That is wildly out of control and unacceptable. But the FBI cannot do that mandate and secure the American people from Washington, D.C. So we're
putting resources in the field. We're working with our partners at the state and local level.
And we are seeing immediate results, as we are seeing in Arkansas, as I outlined yesterday, with hundreds of arrests, thousands of pounds of
narcotics seized, dozens of weapons and multiple indictments.
CRAWFORD: Thank you. Director. I'm going to yield and recognize ranking member Himes for five minutes.
HIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there's something I care as much about as the national security of the United States, it's the powers and
prerogatives of this Congress and its oversight duties.
So I want to spend a minute or so on yesterday's testimony in front of the Senate and direct these questions, in particular, to director Patel and
director Gabbard.
Yesterday, senator Heinrich asked, did this conversation -- referring to the Signal chat -- include information on weapons packages, targets or
timing?
Director Patel, you said, not that I'm aware of.
Director Gabbard, you said same answer.
This morning we learned that the Signal chat included the following update, forward-looking update from the Secretary of Defense.
Time now, 11:44 Eastern time. Weather is favorable. Just confirmed with CENTCOM we are go for mission launch 12:15 Eastern time. F-18 launch first
strike package, 13:45. Trigger based F-18 first strike window starts. Target terrorist is at his known location, so should be on time.
Also strike drones launch MQ-9s, 14:10 more F-18s launched, second strike package.
Do either of the directors want to reflect on their testimony yesterday in the context of what I just read?
PATEL: Sure, one I was not on that Signal chat. Two, I have not reviewed it and, three, as you just indicated, that was made public this morning.
HIMES: But director, you didn't, prior to yesterday's Senate, you were on this. You were on the Signal chat, correct?
PATEL: No.
HIMES: OK.
But did you review -- did you review the material on the Signal chat?
PATEL: No, I wasn't on it.
HIMES: Director Gabbard?
GABBARD: Yes, ranking member. My answer yesterday was based on my recollection or the lack thereof on the details that were posted there. I
was not. And the -- what was shared today reflects the fact that I was not directly involved with that part of the Signal chat.
And replied at the end, reflecting the effects, the very brief effects that the national security advisor had shared.
HIMES: So it's your testimony that, less than two weeks ago, you were on a Signal chat that had all of this information about F-18s and MQ-9 Reapers
and targets on strike. And you, in that two-week period, simply forgot that that was there.
That's your testimony?
GABBARD: My testimony is I did not recall the exact details of what was included there.
HIMES: That was not your testimony. Your testimony was that you were not aware of anything related to weapons, packages, targets and timing.
GABBARD: As the testimony yesterday continued on, there were further questions related to that, where I acknowledged that there was a
conversation about weapons and I don't remember the exact wording that I used. But I did not recall the specific details that were included.
HIMES: Director Gabbard, we've -- you've reasserted that there was no classified information. I think we can all agree that that information
shouldn't have been out there. But let me ask you this.
Are you familiar with the ODNI's classification guidance?
GABBARD: I'm familiar.
HIMES: I actually got a copy right here.
If I read you a part of that guidance, I wonder if you could tell me what the level of classification indicated is. I'm reading from your
classification guidance and the criteria is, information providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an
attack.
Do you recall what the -- your own guidance would suggest that that be classified?
GABBARD: I don't have the specifics in front of me but I would point to what was shared would fall under the DOD's classification system and the
Secretary of Defense's authority.
(CROSSTALK)
HIMES: Let me help you, because there's a very clear answer.
GABBARD: -- and what is not.
HIMES: You don't.
[10:40:00]
(CROSSTALK)
HIMES: I guess you don't have it. But information providing -- and this is the ODNI guidance -- information providing indication or advance warning
that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack should be classified as top secret.
Do you disagree with that?
GABBARD: I don't disagree with that. I just point out that the DOD classification guidance is separate from the ODNI's classification
guidance.
HIMES: Do you think it would be materially different?
(CROSSTALK)
GABBARD: Ultimately, the Secretary of Defense holds the authority to classify or declassify.
HIMES: Do you think it's likely that DOD guidance is materially different from what I just read?
GABBARD: I haven't reviewed the DOD guidance, so I can't comment.
HIMES: Director Gabbard, a lot of this suggests sort of a lack of sobriety when there's punch emojis and fire emojis. It's a lack of sobriety. I don't
mean that literally.
But I have one last question for you, because I think people really listen to what you have to say.
You, on March 15th as DNI, retweeted a post from Ian Miles Cheong, who is listed on "RT." That's "Russia Today's" website as, quote, "a political and
cultural commentator who has contributed content to 'RT' since at least 2022."
Director Gabbard, do you think that it's responsible for you, as head of the intelligence community and the principle's presidential intelligence
advisor to retweet posts from individuals affiliated with Russian state media?
GABBARD: That retweet came from my personal account and I would have to go back to look at the substance of the tweet.
HIMES: Can I just ask, just so that we don't have a lack of confusion amongst our allies and enemies and us, can I ask, perhaps, that you not
think that you should be saying one thing on your personal account than you say officially?
GABBARD: I maintain my First Amendment rights to be able to express my own personal views on different issues.
HIMES: Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
CRAWFORD: Gentleman yields. Now recognize the distinguished vice chairman, General Kelly.
REP. TRENT KELLY (R-MS): Yes. Now for the first 30 seconds, Mr. Ratcliffe or director Ratcliffe, formerly known as Texas from this Mississippi guy,
I'd like to give you 30 seconds if you have anything to respond to what Ms. Gabbard just -- director Gabbard -- I'm sorry -- just said.
RATCLIFFE: Well, Mississippi, it's good to see you again. And I appreciate the opportunity.
You know, there's so much talk about this "Atlantic" article and about things that were said and that could have happened instead of a focus on
what did happen.
So my responsibility as CIA director, one of its responsibilities is to kill terrorists. And that's exactly what I did, along with president
Trump's excellent national security team. That's what we should be focused on.
With regard to that article, I also would appreciate the opportunity to relay the fact that yesterday I spent four hours answering questions from
senators as a result of that article that were intimating that I transmitted classified information because there were hidden messages.
Those messages were revealed today and revealed that I did not transmit classified information and that the reporter, who I don't know, I think,
intentionally intended it to indicate that.
That reporter also indicated that I had released the name of an undercover CIA operative in that Signal chat. In fact, I had released the name of my
chief of staff, who is not operating undercover. That was deliberately false and misleading and I appreciate the opportunity to reflect that.
My answers haven't changed. I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. I didn't transfer any
classified information. And at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success.
Is what everyone should be focused on here, because that's what did happen, not what possibly could have happened.
KELLY: Thank you, director Ratcliffe.
Director Patel, thank you for the great job that you've done. So first of all, your coordination and trying to comply with the letter that was sent
last year and the year before, asking for the baseball (ph) shooting of which -- what I got was basically what happened on the field.
And I was there. So I don't need to know that, although no one from the FBI ever talked to me about what happened. They talked to people who were not
there. But I appreciate your commitment to getting us the full, unredacted report or the redactions or to protect innocent people who are not part of
the process.
[10:45:00]
Not the people who made decisions to classify that as suicide by cop as opposed to an assassination attempt of many members of Congress, of which I
was one. Thank you for your commitment, director Patel, because I know that you will give us what we have asked for so that we can put this to rest.
Mr. Wenstrup, myself and several others.
Can I get your commitment to do that, director Patel?
PATEL: In fact, I just got an update. Mr. Vice Chairman, from my team. You'll have all of those materials to you and your committee by the close
of business today or at the latest tomorrow morning.
KELLY: And just really quickly, director Ratcliffe -- and I don't want to go over time. I think it's so important for everybody to have their time.
Can you tell me the impact that DOGE has had in causing you to fire people you shouldn't have fired or release people, who are instruments of national
security, no longer there?
Tell me if you've had any impact specifically that DOGE has caused you to lose someone who was necessary for national security.
RATCLIFFE: Given the fact that, as of this date, no one from DOGE has been on the CIA campus. And I've had no direct communication with DOGE other
than conversations with Elon Musk at cabinet meetings. I would say the impact is zero.
KELLY: Director Patel.
PATEL: I'm in a similar situation. We do work with DOGE on government efficiencies. But I have not seen any negative impacts at the FBI.
KELLY: Thank you very much.
And director --
ANDERSON: Right.
Intelligence leaders in the U.S. continue testimony about worldwide threats as the fallout from the Signal war group chat continues.
The U.S. director of intelligence being cross-examined by the ranking member just earlier. I've got Peter Bergen and Doug Heye with us.
Doug, the director of intelligence doesn't seem to have a very good memory.
Is that disappointing for someone in a job of such importance?
She was asked whether she stood by what she had said yesterday, which was effectively she didn't remember. She there was nothing classified on this
chat. That has sort of blown up here today. She just said she couldn't remember what was in the chat.
Does that does that worry you?
HEYE: Well, it's become a time honored tradition, so it doesn't surprise me at all. So often in Washington, when people are confronted with previous
evidence, they say they don't remember it. They can't recall. That's been true for Washington in decades.
Now, obviously, now, we're seeing this play out in front of us in real time. But what really struck me, Becky, was what we saw from John Ratcliffe
in this. This is a case where you have a lot of people, who are trying to stand up for themselves, protect themselves, keep themselves employed in
the Trump administration.
So we heard Ratcliffe say, I didn't know about this. I didn't do this. This wasn't my mistake. He's not embracing the team, necessarily. He's looking
out for himself, which may be the smart strategy here for Ratcliffe specifically.
ANDERSON: Both Gabbard and Ratcliffe insisting, Peter, that the most important thing is that this mission was a successful one, standing firm
and deflecting any criticism at this point.
Your thoughts?
BERGEN: Well, a few things. I mean, look, let's start with the British. You know, we have the Five Eyes, which are Canada, Australia, New Zealand
and Britain and the United States, all of whom share intelligence together.
The British and the United States have conducted multiple operations against the Houthis in Yemen in the past.
Are the British going to be inclined to share that information going forward?
And as a general proposition, are the Five Eyes going to say, well, the intel that we share with the United States is treated in a cavalier manner.
I would say point 1.
Point 2, yes, of course, the mission was successful. And by the way, the Biden administration conducted many, many, almost daily operations against
the Houthis in Yemen.
You know, I'm on a CENTCOM mailing list, which is in charge of, you know, the -- that part of the world for military operations. And the Biden
administration was doing this pretty routinely. So this is not like something that's ultra new.
The Bush administration may have, you know, made the target list larger than a typical hit. But, yes, these missions tend to go very well.
However, are they dissuading the Houthis from doing what they're doing?
No. The Houthis have been bombed since 2015 by the Saudis for, you know, there were like 8,000 Saudi bombing raids making no difference to the
Houthis. The Houthis are stronger today than they have been in the past.
I'm not saying that these raids don't have some impact but the point is, if the idea is to get, you know, the Red Sea shipping lanes open again, you
know, an individual operation is not going to do that. The Houthis started these operations because of the Israel, the Israel's attack on Gaza.
[10:50:00]
They stopped them when there was a ceasefire and they've resumed them because the ceasefire is over and they will continue them. So I don't think
this is like, you know, this is not D-Day. Let's be -- let's be clear. This is not like some amazing military operation.
This is -- these operations have been going on during the Biden administration. They've been going on under the Trump administration. They
will continue. Whether they dissuade the Houthis from doing what they're doing, I am skeptical.
ANDERSON: Doug, in regard to classified information, both the DNI director and the CIA director seem to deflect to the Secretary of Defense, certainly
yesterday in the Senate committee hearing and then again.
To your point, John Ratcliffe, very specifically saying today, look, I didn't do this and I didn't do that. I didn't write the detail on attack
planning.
Well, no, he didn't. I mean, we've all seen these texts now. That was Pete Hegseth, who wrote down the series of attack plans that were published
today by "The Atlantic."
I wonder whether you can see -- you say, you know, this doesn't feel like a team playing together at this point.
How much trouble is Pete Hegseth in at this point, do you think.
HEYE: The honest answer is I don't know. Clearly the evidence of what we've seen should be troubling inside the administration. What they say
publicly and privately are going to be different things. We know that.
But I think, for Donald Trump, if this becomes an ongoing problem for him, if this goes into day three, day four, day five, that's where Hegseth or
someone else could find themselves in trouble.
And it's why, unless you're Kash Patel, who can just very clearly say, I wasn't even on this chain, I don't know what these people were talking
about -- which is a great, safe place to be -- there could be more to come on this.
We don't know that absolutely everything has been released. And sure, look, we've all sent text messages that we've forgotten about, included people
that we didn't mean to and so forth. It's a daily occurrence.
But we're also not talking about very specific military plans when we're doing so; it's usually about where we're going for dinner tomorrow night.
ANDERSON: Yes. Hakeem Jeffries sending a letter to Trump demanding that Hegseth be fired immediately, not clear. I mean it hasn't happened to date
and it's not clear what will happen going forward.
Peter, we've just got a couple more minutes. You listened in to the Senate committee hearing yesterday. Obviously it was bruising, given the context.
You know, this was amid the fallout from the original "Atlantic" article, which had published some of what had transpired in that text group.
And, of course, today, these hearings, certainly from the Democrats, will, you know, the war group and the techs will dominate once again.
If you just step back and consider what else we have heard, the point of these hearings yesterday and today in both houses, was to lay out where the
U.S. Intelligence Committee sees the most important threats to national security.
What do you make of what you have heard from that assessment?
BERGEN: Well, Becky, as you -- as you know, these are annual hearings. They just happen to have been scheduled at a very embarrassing time for the
Trump administration.
Every year, the 18 U.S. intelligence agencies get together and produce a report. And it's a report that, you know, as Jim Hines pointed out in his
opening statement, you know, it points to threats from Russia, from China, from North Korea.
Tulsi Gabbard talked about continuing threats from ISIS and ISIS-inspired terrorists in the United States. So it's a pretty routine hearing.
I don't think there's anything in this report that is sort of different than anything else. It just happens to be in the context of this, you know,
discussion around the Signal chat.
You know, Tulsi Gabbard said something, which I think is we're going to hear more from the administration, which is, Pete Hegseth as the Secretary
of Defense has the authority to declassify anything about defense.
And, you know, it's a kind of Jesuitical kind of defense of what he did. But because I doubt he sent this thing out and said, look, I'm going to
declassify it as I send it out, I mean, I doubt there was any formal process.
But I think that's what they're going to fall back on, which is it's not classified because, along with the commander in chief, Pete Hegseth has the
ability to declassify whatever he wants.
[10:55:02]
And when it comes to defense information. So I think we're going to hear more of that. I do think it's a red herring, because clearly, war plans, by
any definition, whether you call them secret or top secret or however you classify them, are not to be widely shared or put in a situation where they
could be widely shared.
And, you know, as Doug -- look, I mean, Doug said a good thing about day three, day four. Well, you know, it's quite possible by next Monday that
this thing will have receded and Pete Hegseth will have his job. Mike Waltz will be fine. And this will be seen as sort of a, you know, a screwup.
But not something that is sort of, that, you know, heads will roll. I very much doubt that Pete Hegseth or Mike Waltz are going to get into serious
trouble from president Trump about this.
ANDERSON: Well, "The Atlantic" has published an additional trove of Signal messages with details of that recent Yemen strike. Those strikes have, of
course, continued.
We will continue with our special coverage of this House Intelligence Committee, hearing testimony from the honorable Kash Patel, director of the
FBI; Tulsi Gabbard there; Mr. Ratcliffe also in the house and CNN will continue to monitor what is going on as we speak there.
I'm Becky Anderson. You've been watching CONNECT THE WORLD, live from our Middle East programming hub here in Abu Dhabi.
[11:00:00]
END
