Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
Sources: Defense Secretary Shared Classified Information in Group Chat; Trump: Russia may be Dragging Feet on Peace in Ukraine; Wildfires Destroy Historic Buddhist Temple in South Korea; Trump to Announce Tariffs on Cars Shipped to the U.S.; Intel Chiefs Testify as Group Chat Fallout Grows; Republican Lawmakers Target NPR, PBS for Defunding. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired March 26, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:10]
JIM SCIUTTO CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Closing bell ringing in Wall Street, as you can hear there, and as you can see
there, markets drifted lower once again after the White House said it would unveil new plans today for auto tariffs. Those are the markets and these
are the main events.
U.S. officials insist that no classified information was shared in a leaked Signal chat. Multiple CNN sources, including ones I've spoken to, say
otherwise.
French President Macron on Ukraine, Russia cannot dictate the terms of peace.
And a new survey shows that Trump's tariff chaos is leading companies to scale back their hiring plans, that means fewer jobs.
Live from Washington. It is Wednesday, March 26th. I am Jim Sciutto, in today for Richard Quest and this is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.
Good evening.
This hour we are expecting President Trump to announce tariffs, new ones on imported cars. We will bring you that event from the White House. You see
right there when it begins.
In the meanwhile, the Trump administration is facing more fallout over an unsecured group chat on the Signal app. Sources say the information,
disclosed to a journalist was indeed classified at the time that it was sent. "The Atlantic" has revealed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
posted war plans ahead -- that's crucial -- ahead of a strike on Yemen.
One U.S. Defense official says the updates provided by Hegseth are highly classified. Why? To protect the lives of servicemembers. Hegseth says
nothing classified got out. He told reporters in Hawaii that he was just keeping everyone informed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SECRETARY: It doesn't look like war plans, and as a matter of fact, they even changed the title to attack
plans because they know it is not war plans. There are no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no
classified information. You know who sees war plans? I see them, every single day. I looked at them this morning.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: In fact, when you look at those texts, they did have locations. They had timing and they had information on targets, including individuals
as well.
Kevin Liptak is at the White House.
Kevin, it appears that the administration has a plan. It is sticking to it, and some of that is semantic, right, to say, well, at least in our view,
this information wasn't classified, even though everyone we are speaking with says that normally information like this is classified.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, very much trying to play this down and to play that semantics game accusing "The Atlantic"
Magazine of changing their phrasing from war plan to attack plan. But I think, you know, you can play that kind of game when people haven't seen
what was in those texts.
Now that we have seen what was included in those messages, including that very detailed, almost tick-tock of this plan to strike the Houthis in
Yemen, I think that will be harder for them to sustain. And certainly you've already seen Republicans on Capitol Hill come out to say they want
more of an explanation, including Roger Wicker, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who says that he wants an independent
investigation into this attack -- into this thread.
Youve also heard John Thune, the Senate Majority Leader, and Lindsey Graham all say that this is information that shouldn't have been included in non-
classified channels. But all that being said, the White House is very much entrenched in this defense of themselves going forward.
You heard Karoline Leavitt today say that Donald Trump, even after seeing exactly what was included in this thread, has not changed his position from
yesterday, which is that no classified information was disclosed, that nothing was compromised in this plan to go after the Houthis.
But I do think that we did hear some very interesting remarks today from two officials who were included in this thread, didn't necessarily
participate extensively in it. Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State and Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary.
Marco Rubio, said that yes, someone did make a big mistake here. He thinks that there should be reforms. That's not necessarily the tone that we heard
from the White House earlier. Scott Bessent too said that in his view, people should be picking up the phone to talk about this kind of
information, not necessarily saying that, oh, yes, Signal wasn't an appropriate place for this kind of discussion, which is what we heard from
the White House earlier today.
[16:05:02]
So you are starting to see some different strains of response, even from within the administration, but certainly President Trump is remaining by
the folks who were involved in this.
Karoline Leavitt said that he continues to have confidence in Pete Hegseth and in Mike Waltz, the National Security adviser. But it will be
interesting to hear from Trump himself later when he is talking about these auto tariffs in the Oval Office. Clearly, this event was scheduled sort of
last minute today, intended, I think, to change the subject somewhat, but certainly the President will likely be faced with a lot of questions on it
in just a few moments from now.
SCIUTTO: Yes, I mean, it is a good point there, Kevin, because this fits with the modus operandi, which is often if you've got a bad story, pick a
new one. Try to distract attention.
Kevin Liptak at the White House.
Well, on Capitol Hill, the President's National Security team faced a second day of questioning over that group chat. Democratic Congressman
Jason Crow asked Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, about the threat the information could have posed to U.S. servicemembers in
the region.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): "Just confirmed with CENTCOM, we are a go for mission launch." Does that indicate to you that there is about to be a
military operation?
TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Yes.
CROW: Director Gabbard, have the Houthis indicated an ability to shoot down American aircraft?
GABBARD: Yes.
CROW: They have in fact done so, haven't they?
GABBARD: Yes.
CROW: Including MQ-9 reapers, haven't they?
GABBARD: That's correct.
CROW: And that was one of the systems used in the attack recently that's the subject of this discussion, is it not?
GABBARD: Correct?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Joining me now, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson. It was a great line of questioning there because it gets to the
specificity of why this would be a risk to U.S. servicemembers involved. You're saying the time of the attack, the platforms involved F-18s and as
Representative Crow there noted, the Houthis have previously been able to shoot down such aircraft.
So in your experience as someone who has handled classified information before, is this classified?
BRIG. GEN. STEVE ANDERSON (RET), U.S. ARMY: Yes, absolutely, Jim. It is top secret information. Now, we are getting hung up in Secretary Hegseth is
trying to split hairs over the word "war plans." A typical war plan is 500 pages. Nobody is saying that he sent an entire war plan in a text message
like that, but he -- there were at least five critical top secret elements of information that were in that thread to include, as you said, timing,
locations, the delivery platforms, the delivery locations, but also battle damage assessments. That is absolutely critical.
We disclosed that we knew that the bad guy that we took out walked into his girlfriend's apartment. Now they know, the Houthis know that we have
probably some human intelligence on the ground watching that apartment, and that person might very well be being tortured or dead right now as a result
of that thread.
SCIUTTO: So let me ask you this. When you try to hide behind just the term "classified," it is possible that the Defense Secretary could say, well,
I've declassified this. Does that take away the sensitivity of the information? Whatever you call it, whatever label you put on it, does it
take away in any way the dangers and damage that you're describing?
ANDERSON: Not at all. Not at all. It is ridiculous to even think that -- why that information wouldn't be classified is absolutely preposterous. It
just shows how incredibly lazy and incompetent you know he is, and that's why he should resign.
I mean, he made the point, accountability starts now when he took office as the Secretary of Defense. Well, guess what? He needs to take accountability
for his actions. Show responsibility, what every good leader does, he is accountable and responsible. He screwed up. He needs to submit his
resignation now.
SCIUTTO: Let me ask you another piece of this, because beyond the sniping that they did in this text chain about America's European allies calling
them pathetic, et cetera. If you're an ally that not just shares intelligence with the U.S., but also has your forces in the region who
might be exposed as well. In your experience, how would an ally respond to this?
ANDERSON: They would be absolutely disgusted as was i. I mean, Europe -- they are allies. They are our friends. The NATO Alliance has been the
greatest alliance in the history of mankind. It has stimulated 80 years of prosperity, not only in Europe, but in the United States, you know, and it
is an incredibly successful alliance and why we would ever seek to try to damage that alliance is beyond me.
SCIUTTO: Let me ask you how America's adversaries view this situation, because we should note this is not -- and we shouldn't take it in
isolation. You have a President who took boxes of classified information and threw it in his basement, unsecured, who, during his first
administration shared classified information with the Russian ambassador.
There have been a number of incidents that show the level of care that one might expect with this sensitive information is not met by this
administration.
[16:10:09]
What does that mean bigger picture in terms of how well our adversaries might take advantage of that?
ANDERSON: Jim, here is the big picture. Our National Security is at risk, at greater risk than it has ever been. Why? Because our adversaries know
that we have lazy, incompetent, deceitful people who are running our country, particularly the Secretary of Defense, the National Security
adviser, the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA Director, who both at Gabbard and Ratcliffe, both of them perjured themselves yesterday and
today.
I mean, they know our adversaries know that we have people running the show right now that don't know what they're doing, and we are in big trouble as
a result.
SCIUTTO: You served in uniform. Of course, we have civilian control of the military and if members of the military get lawful orders, they follow
those orders. If they get unlawful orders, or I imagine, witness unlawful behavior, for some, there might be a limit, right, as to how much they
would be willing to tolerate or stomach.
And have you seen anything in this instance that might lead a member of the military of senior level to say, I resign in protest?
ANDERSON: Well, I mean, I would probably like to see that, you know, if it did come to the fact that there was some kind of an unlawful order.
For instance, you know, all of this talk about Greenland and Canada and Panama. What if this, you know, the President wakes up in the morning and
says, hey, we are going to invade Canada. We are going to invade Greenland and Panama. You know, would that be a lawful order?
Well, it probably would, unfortunately, because, you know, that's -- we, in the military have been taught to take civilian leadership, you know, that's
a pinnacle, an absolute foundation of our leadership is civilian leadership.
And my entire career, 31 years in the Army, I never knew or cared the political allegiance of my boss or any of my people, we just take orders
smartly and we move out. I would submit to you that, you know, that kind of an attack would be extremely dangerous and obviously very egregious, and I
would hope that it would never come to that.
But unfortunately, you know, the president is the president. He is the commander-in-chief and he can direct our forces to do what he wants.
SCIUTTO: It would still be -- because the President has spoken quite publicly, for instance, not just about taking control of Greenland, but
about unilaterally changing the borders with Canada. If the President were to do so, would that be a lawful order to the U.S. military?
ANDERSON: You know, unfortunately, it probably would be simply because he is the commander-in-chief and we have to take advantage -- you know, we
have to follow his bidding.
Now, I would hope that there are other means, obviously, to stop that from happening. The political repercussions, I would hope, would change his
mind. But, you know, we salute smartly when we are told to move out and that's the foundation of our leadership of our military. We've always
believed that we will continue to believe that.
We just hope that we -- America elects somebody who has the presence of mind and the smartness not to get it -- you know, not to cross that line
and cross that threshold and put us at risk like that.
SCIUTTO: It will be tested.
Retired General Steve Anderson thanks so much for joining, as always.
ANDERSON: Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Still to come, Donald Trump says Russia may have been, "dragging their feet" on achieving peace in Ukraine. We are going to have a reaction
from a Ukrainian lawmaker on those latest developments. Is Trump being tough enough on Putin? That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:16:09]
SCIUTTO: President Donald Trump is suggesting that Russia could be delaying a full truce with Ukraine. The Kremlin wants sanctions lifted on its banks
and exports before agreeing to a deal to pause fighting in the Black Sea.
President Trump says he believes Russia does ultimately want to end the war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think that Russia wants to see an end to it, but it could be they're dragging their
feet. I've done that over the years. You know, I don't want to sign a contract. I want to sort of stay in the game, but maybe I don't want to do
it, wait, I'm not sure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he expects the U.S. to secure a Black Sea Agreement without Russian conditions.
France's Emmanuel Macron is hosting his Ukrainian counterpart ahead of high stakes meetings in Paris. European leaders will gather in the French
capital tomorrow to discuss their support for Kyiv.
Kira Rudik is a Ukrainian member of Parliament and she joins me now.
Thanks so much for coming back.
KIRA RUDIK, UKRAINIAN MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: Hello, Jim, and thank you so much for having me.
SCIUTTO: You know, it struck me that when the White House and President Trump perceived that Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not eager enough for a
ceasefire, the President attacked him publicly and withheld U.S. military assistance and intelligence.
When President Trump said Putin is dragging his feet, he immediately, as you saw there, made excuses to some degree for Putin, saying, well, listen,
when i was doing business deals, I dragged my feet as well.
Do you believe that the U.S. is treating Russia and Ukraine equally in these negotiations?
RUDIK: Jim, it is unfortunate that first, President Trump has started to put his pressure on Ukraine first, bringing us to the table of negotiations
without actually having planned on what is he going to do with Russia, or at least we cannot see the results of this plan, and we do not see, using
President Trump's words, which cards the U.S. held to put pressure on Russia, because I think it is much more complicated to deal with the
aggressor than with Ukraine that is defending ourselves.
So right now, the main question that we didn't hear the answer to all of us is like, what would happen if Russia will continue dragging its feet and
continue trying to make the U.S. President weak and indecisive and like, what would be the next steps?
I think it will be a turning point in the U.S. administration's strategy towards Russia and we hope that this turning point will come sooner rather
than later, because I want to remind you and all our viewers that the attacks on Ukrainian peaceful cities did not stop for a single day.
So just right now, the air raid siren went off in Kyiv like 30 minutes ago. So Russia continues attacking us and killing civilians throughout Ukraine,
even though there is this illusion that President Trump holds that Russia wants peace.
SCIUTTO: I wonder when you were listening to President Trump's envoy to these negotiations, Steve Witkoff over the weekend, he gave an interview in
which he repeated a number of Russian talking points about Ukraine. That discussion of NATO membership from Ukraine was the real cause of the war
that that provoked Russia in advance.
He said that elections that Russia held under duress in territories it occupies in Eastern Ukraine showed, according to Witkoff, that many
Ukrainians prefer to be under Russia. He even repeated Russia's point argument claim that Ukraine is a false country. What did it mean to you to
hear the President's own envoy sound like he was reading off a Kremlin list of talking points?
[16:20:16]
RUDIK: Jim, it indeed sounded like Russian propaganda repeated, unfortunately, by one of the high U.S. representatives. But, you know, as a
politician, I can get a sense that it may be just a way of getting Russia into negotiations, et cetera and again, as a politician, as a
representative of my people, I can be somehow understandable of that.
But it is absolutely impossible to explain what was said to Ukrainian military who are fighting every day for the security of Europe and
democratic world, it is very hard to explain to them why the pressure on Ukraine was so tough and basically, in one day, President Trump just pulled
the intelligence and military support, endangering so many people.
And then at the same time, things that should not have been said, were being said and offending so many people, especially from the eastern
regions who are fighting to defend our country and our sovereignty. That is indeed unfortunate and it is impossible for a politician and for a
representative to explain it to the people who are fighting every single day.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
What happens if this is not just a negotiating tactic, but that President Trump, his envoy, come to some sort of agreement with Russia that
Ukrainians believe is not in their interest. It does not guarantee their safety and serves Russia's interests more than Ukraine's interests. Can
Ukraine say no?
RUDIK: Well, we said no, Jim, in 2022, when the whole world did not believe in us, right? We said no when the whole world was expecting that we will
capitulate. As of right now, we are in a better situation. We are not alone. And with all the respect and love that we have to our U.S. allies,
we also have European allies who are standing with us.
And I strongly believe that it is not a representation of the will of American people to put Ukraine into this situation when we will have to
choose, or we will have to feel that we were betrayed. And I strongly believe that it will not be a representation of a strong presidency, as
President Trump wants to be perceived, right?
So even with all of these things that have been said, we still have high hopes that the United States will remain our ally, that the U.S.
administration understands what we are fighting for, and that our European allies will take more responsibilities seeing that right now, the situation
is really unstable.
But we did not capitulate, Jim, in 2022 and we do not intend to capitulate right now.
SCIUTTO: One thing that I am sure you know, but that many of your viewers may not, is that Ukraine's own weapons, particularly drones, that its
developed on its own, are now responsible for the vast majority of Russian casualties on the frontlines. I wonder if you believe, if the U.S. were to
abandon Ukraine, if the combination of Ukraine's own weapons production, its military, et cetera, plus increased European support, which we are
seeing, I see the French today announce additional weapons systems coming your way, that that would be enough not to replace the U.S., but at least
to allow Ukraine to defend itself.
RUDIK: I wish we would never have to discuss it, you know, in practicalities, just in theory. Right? Because obviously, it will decrease
the security and ability for our people to survive.
But again, we will do our best, as we have been doing for the last three years of full scale invasion and the last 11 years since Russia first
attacked us.
So we really appreciate your help, but we know that we are fighting for our own freedom and our own future, and we will not rely on any administration
of being the one who will be deciding that except of Ukrainian people.
SCIUTTO: Kira Rudik, as i always say when we speak, I wish you safety given the air raid warnings going on right now in Kyiv. Thank you so much for
joining.
RUDIK: Thank you and glory to Ukraine.
SCIUTTO: Well, South Korea is scrambling now to stop a wave of deadly wildfires threatening lives and its heritage. The damage has been called
unprecedented, with dry air and strong winds fueling an inferno just south of Seoul. At least 24 people have been killed, an historic Buddhist temple
was destroyed.
CNN's Mike Valerio has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIKE VALERIO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): A piece of history burned to the ground.
[16:25:08 ]
This was the scene at South Korea's Gounsa Temple, a place of worship for 1,300 years destroyed by wildfires.
Flames surrounded the Buddhist temple complex as wildfires spread across the south of the country over the past week. What now remains are mounds of
ash and rubble.
JEUNG MEUNG-SUK, BUDDHIST FOLLOWER (through translator): Our Buddhist followers are very proud of our temple, because this is such an old temple,
it is so regrettable and heartbreaking that it has been burned down.
VALERIO (voice over): Some of the artifacts, like the Stone Buddha, which has been designated a treasure by the state, were spared as they were moved
to other temples ahead of the fires.
The blazes first broke out last weekend. Several people have been injured and killed so far, including civil servants dispatched to fight the fires
according to the Interior Safety Ministry.
And for those who have escaped unharmed, there are still losses to bear.
KIM BYUNG-WOOK, SANCHEONG RESIDENT (through translator): Things that remind me of my youth disappeared without a trace. Photos of my children when they
were young that sometimes I look at to reminisce about the past are all gone, and for my children, there is no place to share memories with them.
I lost my memory of youth.
VALERIO (on camera): South Korea's acting President Han Duck-soo, called these wildfires South Korea's worst ever. He said that they are being
fueled by gale force winds and he added that all available resources nationwide are being deployed.
Authorities are continuing to work around the clock to contain the fires before more of South Korea's history is gone forever.
Mike Valerio, CNN, Seoul.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Let's hope they are able to get those fires under control. Coming up, the CIA Director says at the end of the day, nothing bad happened.
This, after a reporter was accidentally added to a chat with sensitive information and intelligence in advance of U.S. strikes on Houthi rebels.
We are going to discuss more after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Hello, I am Jim Sciutto, there is more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in a moment when top U.S. intelligence officials were grilled in Congress over
their unsecure group chat on Signal.
The heads of NPR and PBS also appeared on Capitol Hill. This, as Republicans vow to cut funding for public broadcasting.
Before that, the headlines this hour.
[16:30:27]
[16:30:07]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Jim Sciutto.
There's more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in a moment when top U.S. intelligence officials were grilled in Congress over their unsecure group chat on
Signal. The heads of NPR and PBS also appeared on Capitol Hill. This as Republicans vow to cut funding for public broadcasting. Before that, the
headlines this hour.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says his posts on a group chat contained no classified information. "The Atlantic" revealed that Hegseth
posted the timing, targets and more information on U.S. strikes in Yemen. Sources tell CNN such information was classified when he shared it with
that group. Hegseth says he was keeping members of his administration informed.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Biden era regulations on so-called ghost guns. Makers of gun kits must ensure the assembled weapon has a traceable
serial number. Those who sell the kits are required to perform background checks on those who buy them. The high court upheld the regulations by a
majority of 7-2.
The French president, Emmanuel Macron, is hosting his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Paris. Macron says France will provide
Kyiv with more than $2 billion worth of additional military support. France is set to hold a summit on Ukraine on Thursday. Some 30 countries,
including the U.K. and Germany, will attend.
This just in to CNN. A federal appeals court here in D.C. has upheld a block on the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants.
The judges ruled 2-1 that that block can remain in place while a legal challenge plays out. The president had been using the 18th century, that's
the 1700s, act to deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang.
We're going to bring you more on that story as it develops.
Any minute now the president is set to announce new tariffs on imported cars. He was expected to announce them on April 2nd, along with a package
of reciprocal tariffs on countries worldwide. Doing it today perhaps to draw attention away from that Signal story. Corporate America is becoming
increasingly concerned about the effect of these tariffs on global trade. A survey of chief financial officers shows that tariffs are now their number
one, as you see there, worry.
Mary Lovely is a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics. And she joins me now.
Thanks so much for joining.
MARY LOVELY, SENIOR FELLOW, PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS: My pleasure.
SCIUTTO: I'm just going to start with a very basic question, because it still gets asked. Who pays for tariffs?
LOVELY: Well, we saw in the U.S.-China trade war that the tariff was passed through to the American buyer. So it may fall in the first instance on the
American manufacturer who buys the input, who may then pass it on to the consumer, or it is passed through directly through the retail chain to the
American consumer.
SCIUTTO: Yes. And we've heard this, that as it relates to cars, which the president is going to announce these new tariffs on today, that that's
already increasing the price of cars by in some cases many thousands of dollars. There has been, as you know, mixed messaging because the president
will begin by saying he's going to impose massive tariffs on everything, and then he'll draw back, give some exceptions, pull back, perhaps some of
those top line numbers there.
In terms of economic impact, does that uncertainty and back and forth impose its own costs on growth forecasts?
LOVELY: Absolutely. There's a long, long history of empirical studies in the economics literature showing that uncertainty about policy does have a
chilling effect, particularly on investments. And we know that companies are right now struggling to figure out where are they going to make
investments, how are they going to rearrange their supply chains in light of U.S. policy uncertainty.
SCIUTTO: You've written about this. You said what Mr. Trump is doing with tariffs is a result of a lost consensus about how the United States should
interact with other countries in the global economy. What he says he's trying to do with these tariffs is to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.
but when you look at, for instance, the supply chain for cars in North America, it's very integrated. There's a lot that goes back and forth more
than once.
Can he do in short order what he's proposing to do, which is to try to basically force via financial pressure all of that manufacturing back
inside the U.S.?
LOVELY: Well, obviously not in short order, one would argue, not even within this term. Building a manufacturing plant like an auto plant is long
term process.
[16:35:04]
And of course, by using tariffs to facilitate that, especially tariffs on Canada and Mexico, he is going to really disrupt the auto industry rather
than help it. What we are going to see of course is higher prices for consumers, and decreased sales in the United States. Americans will keep
their cars longer. They'll have to. They won't be able to afford them. They'll also have a lot less choice because, you know, autos that are sold
in small amounts are basically not assembled here. They're assembled overseas. Those autos simply won't be shipped here anymore. So we're going
to see higher prices, lower demand and less choice.
SCIUTTO: When I speak, for instance, to Canadian officials, they say that this is fundamentally changed. The Canadian trading relationship with the
U.S., that regardless of what President Trump does going forward, perhaps he wakes up one day and decides, well, I'm. you know, I'm done with Canada.
but although all signals are pointing in the opposite direction, that from the Canadian perspective, that relationship is fundamentally changed.
There's no going back, that they're going to redirect as best they can, trade and trade agreements elsewhere. Is that, in your view, where this is
going?
LOVELY: Yes, I think it is, because President Trump is basically ripping up some of his own agreements. So if we see that American president won't
even, you know, be enforcing his own agreements, then what faith is there that he will enforce the agreements that are made in the past? At issue
today might be the U.S., Japan free trade agreement, which was negotiated by President Trump and which largely was concessions by Japan on our
agricultural exports.
If today the president decides to put tariffs on vehicles that Japan exports to the United States, it's very possible that Japan said, well,
this agreement is not worth the paper that its written on, and we'll just rip it up, and replace tariffs on your agricultural exports.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, Mary Lovely, I'm sure it's not the last time we talk about this. Thanks so much for joining us.
LOVELY: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Well, returning now to the expanding fallout from that Signal group chat, top national security officials faced lawmakers for a second
straight day. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, CIA director, and others played down the severity of the
incident. The CIA director said at the end of the day the operation was successful.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Well, it's not how the laws are written. Alex Marquardt joins me now.
So the CIA director there says, I used an acceptable forum, in effect, to share this information.
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Right.
SCIUTTO: He did say I, he didn't say we.
MARQUARDT: If you listen to Ratcliffe closely, he's focusing very much on what he himself did. And so he is allowed to use Signal. That's true. And
it is also true, we believe, that what he put into this chat was not classified. The troubling information here is what Pete Hegseth put in the
chat, which was this very detailed plan of how this attack was going to unfold. And there were some comments from the National Security adviser,
Mike Waltz, after the attack about what had actually happened.
So now you're seeing this strategy develop from the Trump administration, that is quibble with this description of war plans and deny that anything
in there was classified. The war plans thing is kind of silly, but when you look at everything that Hegseth laid out in detail, timing, when the bombs
are definitely going to start falling is what he said. The types of jets and drones that are going to be used, that -- those are plans for an
operation, for a strike, for an attack. And so that's why it seems a little bit silly that the administration is fighting over this descriptor of war
plans.
As to the question of whether these things are classified, we've heard Mike Waltz, Hegseth and others coming out saying no sources and methods were
revealed, no routes, no units, et cetera. But, Jim, as you know well, there are all kinds of things that can be considered classified. And the items
that were included in the Hegseth text almost certainly were classified according to current officials, former officials and experts.
And we saw in this hearing this morning, the top Democrat, Jim Himes, on the Intelligence Committee, essentially throw the book at Tulsi Gabbard,
the director of National Intelligence, showing her office's own guidelines and highlighting the fact that it is considered top secret when there's
information providing an indication or an advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack.
SCIUTTO: And that was the line that Representative Jason Crow took, too.
MARQUARDT: Right.
SCIUTTO: Was about danger to U.S. service members involved because I spoke to a senior U.S. Military official who made the point, why is this kind of
information classified?
[16:40:10]
Because the target could put up, I mean, for a number of reasons, not only could they leave those locations, right?
MARQUARDT: Right.
SCIUTTO: In advance, but they could put up more surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft systems, which could then conceivably overwhelm pilots. And
we know that the Houthis have shot down U.S. aircraft before.
MARQUARDT: And this really is the big point, putting aside whether it's classified or not, putting aside whether it's war plans or not, had it not
been Jeffrey Goldberg that had been invited into that chat, let's say Mike Waltz had put his Russian counterpart in the chat, we know he talks to him,
he could have made that mistake. And then suddenly you've got a Russian in the chat who's got access to all these plans or any of a number of foreign
or diplomatic or intelligence officials who could have shared those plans with the Houthis, therefore allowing, as you say, the Houthis to change
their plans, move their people around, move their munitions around, or have advance notice of Americans coming into their airspace and being able to
shoot them down.
Jason Crow showed that SA-3 surface-to-air missile system, air defense system, and so yes, that is the real risk here that American service
members could have been hurt. But you have Ratcliffe and others saying, well, it didn't happen so let's not focus on that.
SCIUTTO: Well, I mean, it's like saying, you know, a drunk driver didn't hit someone, right?
MARQUARDT: Right.
SCIUTTO: And therefore the drunk driving was fine.
MARQUARDT: Exactly.
SCIUTTO: Alex Marquardt, thanks so much.
Well, Republicans are threatening to cut funding for NPR and PBS. Leaders from the public broadcasters made their case on Capitol Hill today, and
we'll bring that to you next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: This week "Call to Earth" is in Uganda, following a woman working to save the mountain gorillas. 30 years ago, they were classified as
critically endangered. Now the numbers have almost doubled. And as conservation efforts increase, there are springs of hope for the future of
these gentle giants.
[16:45:07]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL WEIR, CNN CHIEF CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT: Under the dappled light of the forest canopy, a dedicated team of conservationists, scientists and rangers
are moving carefully through the undergrowth, searching for the elusive giants of this mountain.
For Dr. Gladys Kalema-Zikusoka, this is familiar ground. For three decades, she has walked among the gorillas, protecting them and learning from them.
Since becoming Uganda's first wildlife veterinarian in 1996, she has helped Bwindi's gorilla population grow from 300 to 459 at last count.
Today, she leads her own organization, the Conservation Through Public Health, dedicated to lifting the local communities in harmony with the
animals.
DR. GLADYS KALEMA-ZIKUSOKA, FOUNDER AND CEO, CONSERVATION THROUGH PUBLIC HEALTH: I would say that the journey that the gorillas have been on in the
past 30 years is a beacon of hope in the world of conservation. The gorillas have really transformed Uganda and brought Uganda back. You know,
conservation and tourism back on the map.
WEIR: A thousand years ago, the mountain gorillas roamed across the Albertine Rift Valley throughout the Afromontane forests of Uganda, Rwanda
and the Democratic Republic of Congo. But centuries of logging, mining and population growth have chipped away more and more of that natural habitat,
leaving the gorillas clinging to just two surviving habitats, the Virungas and Bwindi.
KALEMA-ZIKUSOKA: The largest threat to mountain gorillas before they were habituated for tourism was habitat loss because people were cutting trees.
They would come into the forest to do mining and, you know, to collect firewood, and they're just dependent on the forest for natural resources.
WEIR: In 1994, Bwindi was made a UNESCO world heritage site in preparation for gorilla tourists began. Through a process known as habituation, 27
gorilla groups in the park have slowly become accustomed to peaceful human presence in their forest, meaning that for one hour per group per day,
tourists are permitted to visit these animals in their wild habitat.
Over the three decades since, the more tourism has grown, the more protection there has been for the gorillas, and the small national park now
boasts almost half of the world's remaining mountain gorilla population.
KALEMA-ZIKUSOKA: So Rushegura group is moving a lot these days, huh?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. It is moving a lot because, you know, silverbacks compete.
KALEMA-ZIKUSOKA: Yes. Will we find the gorillas today?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
KALEMA-ZIKUSOKA: I mean, I haven't checked on them in a while.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
KALEMA-ZIKUSOKA: And I know that they have some new babies. They want to see how the new babies are doing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
KALEMA-ZIKUSOKA: Yes.
WEIR: This is one of the largest groups in Bwindi with 16 family members, including two silverbacks, four adult females and four babies.
KALEMA-ZIKUSOKA: I try and make notes on each of the gorillas, so, you know, for unusual behavior, unusual appearance to see if there's any
clinical signs, but also just generally checking on them to see how they are. They also have different personalities, and so their personalities
also help us to know whether they're OK or not. I think there's some really nice figs up here that they really want to eat.
WEIR: Amidst the bounty of fig trees, the Rushegura group is in good health and representative of the strides forward this population has made in
recent years.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: We will see more from Dr. Gladys and the gorillas tomorrow and Friday, and you can let us know what you're doing to answer the call with
the hashtag "Call to Earth."
We'll be right back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:51:39]
SCIUTTO: Some Republican lawmakers are vowing to cut funding for public broadcasters here in the U.S. The heads of NPR Radio and PBS Television
testified in front of a House DOGE Subcommittee in Washington today. They responded to allegations of bias and made the case for continued funding.
Republicans on the committee say the organizations are not serving the public. Democrats say they are more important than ever.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR-GREENE (R-GA): NPR and PBS have increasingly become radical, left-wing echo chambers for a narrow audience of mostly wealthy,
white, urban liberals and progressives who generally look down on and judge rural America.
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): At a time where we can't agree on basic facts and while the free press is under attack, we need public media like PBS and
NPR more than ever. A large majority of Americans say they trust PBS, and that's exactly why extremists are trying to tear it down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: A lot of Americans like "Sesame Street," too.
Brian Stelter is with me now.
And Brian, as you know, you know, public broadcasting has long been a target of Republicans. I wonder, is it different this time? Are they
serious this time about taking the funding away?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: One of the reasons why it's different this time is that not only is President Trump in power, but House
Republicans are in power. The Senate is controlled by Republicans. So there's a lot more power here held by Republicans. And that's frankly why
PBS and NPR had to show up today. You know, sometimes these hearings are announced, and when Republicans are not fully in power, these network
executives skip the hearings. They don't show up. But they felt they had to show up today because Republicans are in control in Washington, D.C.
This was in a kind of an example of people talking past each other, though, Jim. Marjorie Taylor-Greene and other House Republicans are focusing on
national news scandals, right? They're talking about allegations of bias at PBS and NPR. The executives from public media were talking right past them,
talking about local media, talking about the benefits and the impacts of local broadcasting in states across the country.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
STELTER: The thing about NPR and PBS, these local stations mostly get funding around the margins. Most of these stations would survive without
federal funding. It's the smaller stations, the rural stations in states like Alaska and Hawaii that would have a harder time without federal
funding. And that's historically why lawmakers in both parties have ponied up to fund these networks.
Now, here's the thing. A couple of weeks ago, President Trump signed a bill that that funding bill that provided more funding for PBS and NPR. So in
the short term, these networks are safe. But in the long term, they do believe there's a threat from all of this theatrical production that
Marjorie Taylor-Greene put on today, Jim.
SCIUTTO: I mean, the thing is, right. and this is, you cover this as much as anybody, right? That you have a very deliberate, broad-based attack on
independent media in general, right? I mean, in a whole host of ways, from lawsuits to outright threats, you have a you have an FBI director who has
said publicly, at least before his confirmation, that he was happy to go after journalists criminally or civilly.
I wonder if we should look at this as part of a bigger picture, right? As an attempt to outright stifle independent media in this country.
STELTER: Well, President Trump and his allies are trying to squeeze the American media every single way they can, from FCC investigations to that
ban against the Associated Press, to the shutdown of Voice of America.
[16:55:08]
But there's a push and pull going on, and the push is really significant from news outlets. You have, for example, Radio Free Europe winning in a
lawsuit yesterday, at least temporarily, against Trump's termination order. You have the AP back in court tomorrow fighting for its rights. You have
NPR and PBS today defending themselves against these House Republicans. So there's very much a push and a pull. It is an intense amount of pressure
being applied to the American media.
But you don't see the media rolling over. You do see some media owners making settlement deals and doing other things to curry favor.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
STELTER: But journalists on the front lines are doing the work every day. And that's one of the headlines from this hearing today. NPR and PBS making
the point that they're out there just doing the work, no matter who's in charge in Washington or beyond.
SCIUTTO: And listen, we're seeing it as an example of this, the reaction to this "Atlantic" story versus -- regarding the Signal chat, a story the
White House itself confirmed as factual and part of the response plan has been attack the journalist.
STELTER: And that in some ways helps around the edges with partisans, some Trump voters will tune out the story because Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump
and Karoline Leavitt have called it a hoax. But most Americans have historically seen through those attempts at spin and smears. And we know in
the last 48 hours, the "Atlantic" has had a big boost in subscribers not just in traffic, but in paying customers.
That's one of the ways forward here for the American media. Getting more people to donate, to pay, to subscribe, to sign up. And we have seen a lot
of evidence that that's actually working, even though we should not take these threats. You know, we should not downplay these threats. The threats
from Trump and his allies are real. They're serious. They must be taken seriously. But the pushback has been pretty serious, too.
SCIUTTO: No question. Well, Brian Stelter, good to have you on, and thanks for keeping track of it all.
STELTER: Thanks.
SCIUTTO: Well, U.S. markets dropped ahead of Trump's expected announcement of new tariffs on imported cars. The Dow Jones, it fell 132 points, S&P 500
slid more than 1 percent. Tech stocks pulled down the Nasdaq more than 2 percent.
The magnificent seven, those big seven tech stocks, partially to blame. Apple and Microsoft shed just themselves more than 1 percent. Meta and
Amazon shed more than 2 percent. Alphabet, of course, owns Google, notched 3 percent losses.
That's a lot of red on the screen there. Look at Tesla as well. Tesla, Nvidia dropping more than 5 percent. That was after a bit of a boost for
Tesla the last couple of days prior.
That is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. I'm Jim Sciutto in for Richard today. "THE LEAD" is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
