Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

More Trump Administration Signal Chat Texts Released. Aired 11- 11:30a ET

Aired March 26, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:01]

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: We have no assessment that says that.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO (D-TX): Thank you.

In invoking the law, the president alleged that Tren de Aragua is -- quote -- "undertaking hostile actions against the U.S. at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela."

Director Gabbard, does the intelligence community assess that the Venezuelan government is directing Tren de Aragua's hostile actions against the United States?

TULSI GABBARD, U.S. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: There are varied assessments that came from different intelligence community elements.

I will defer to Director Patel to speak specifically to the FBI assessment.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right, we're going to continue to monitor this important House Intelligence Committee hearing. We will get back to it.

But I want to get some serious analysis right now. CNN's Alex Marquardt, Evan Perez, and Alayna Treene are all joining us. Alayna is over at the White House.

It's very interesting right now that what we're learning, specific details from "The Atlantic" magazine, this new article that just came out publicizing all the specific elements of the conversation that they had on that Signal chat.

And it's clear to me, as a former Pentagon correspondent, a former White House correspondent, that that's sensitive information included what's called sources and methods, and potentially would be highly classified, top secret U.S. intelligence that was openly being discussed on this group chat.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: By all accounts, everything we have seen today, Wolf, that was published in "The Atlantic" would be classified. That's according to current officials. That's according to former officials and experts.

What you have here that was laid out by Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, were very specific operational details, what kinds of fighter jets would be carrying out these strikes,the fact that there would be a number of waves, the exact timing of, as he wrote, the first bombs will begin to fall.

And then there is something of an after-action report, the results of some of these strikes that was provided by the national security adviser, Mike Waltz, in which he tells the rest of the group that their top missile guy, as he put it, was struck as he walked into his girlfriend's building, and it's now collapsed, he wrote.

So that's a location. That is a target. Previously, we heard about the methods that were going to be used. So this claim that no sources and methods were put in this chat, it just flies in the face of what we're seeing in front of us. And this claim that they continue to make that none of this was classified is just extraordinary, because this is some of the most sensitive information that is in the national security space.

We have now heard the top Democrat on this House committee, Jim Himes, read out one of the definitions of what should be classified. And it was plans for a strike. It was a generic example. And what was very interesting about the director of national intelligence's response is, she then tried to put the onus on the secretary of defense, saying that the Defense Department has their own classification method.

So this does seem to be part of a strategy by these top intelligence officials to essentially say, this was Pete Hegseth. This is -- he was the one who put this stuff out there. And he was asked very specifically overnight whether he declassified this intelligence, and he basically ignored the question, fixating on this notion that what was in this chat was not war plans.

They continue to quibble with this description by "The Atlantic" of war plans. But, Wolf, make no mistake about it. What is in these text messages are very, very clear and specific plans for a series of strikes against the Houthis.

BLITZER: And one of the -- Alex, and one of the text messages that was released today by "The Atlantic" magazine was this quote from Michael Waltz, who's the president's national security adviser.

Referring to the U.S. military, "Their first target" -- and I'm quoting now -- "Their first target was their top missile guy," the top missile guy for the Houthi rebels backed by Iran. "We had positive I.D. of him walking into his girlfriend's building, and it's now collapsed."

Is it appropriate for the U.S. military to bomb a building where there's the girlfriend who presumably is not involved with the Houthi missile plans or anything along that nature, to go ahead and bomb that building and kill her in the process? We don't know if she's dead. We have no word. But, presumably, if the whole building is collapsed, he was -- we do

know that the missile guy from the Houthis was killed in that attack. We don't know about the girlfriend. But if the girlfriend was killed, is that the right military move to attack a building where they knew he was walking into a building to see his girlfriend?

MARQUARDT: It raises questions about collateral damage that militaries weigh all the time.

The U.S. military, the Israeli military in Gaza, for example, when these militaries are carrying out strikes and they do an assessment ahead of time about what the collateral damage could be, they have to weigh whether it is essentially worth it, as cold-hearted as that sounds, whether it is worth the risk of killing innocents, as we presume this girlfriend to be, in order to take out the primary target.

[11:05:11]

And whether or not they knew that -- ahead of time that the girlfriend could be killed, that, we don't know. But they -- we are seeing clearly here from Mike Waltz that they got him, this top missile guy, as Waltz put it, as he went into his girlfriend's building, and that building now came down.

And I will point out, Waltz, that this implicates Waltz a lot more than we had previously thought.

BLITZER: That's why I was reading it.

MARQUARDT: Absolutely.

And what he's providing here is intelligence, and so the question then becomes also, is what Waltz saying classified, because until now we have been focused on what Pete Hegseth has said, what the CIA director has said. And, by the way, CIA director continues to deny anything that he put in the chat was classified.

And here's Mike Waltz providing more intelligence, so he's going to have to answer the questions of what -- when -- what here is classified.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: By the way, one of the things that we notice in the text chain also, Wolf, you see Mike Waltz changing the time of which these messages are -- before they're destroyed, essentially, before they disappear, and he changes it from one point from one week, apparently, to four weeks.

So, look, anyone who uses Signal knows that the messages disappear, they're supposed to disappear. And, normally, you want those things to disappear in a much shorter time frame because of the security of this. And it's clear Mike Waltz seems to know how Signal works, so I don't know what kind of investigation he's trying to do or claim that he's trying to do to figure out how Jeffrey Goldberg got on here.

He clearly knows to change the disappearing messages feature. BLITZER: I have covered intelligence blunders, U.S. intelligence failures over the years, and one of the first things that always happens is there's an FBI investigation, and that still hasn't been...

MARQUARDT: To determine the damage, correct?

PEREZ: Right. Exactly.

BLITZER: Yes.

All right, I want to stand I want you guys to stand by. Alayna Treene is over at the White House for us.

What are we hearing from the White House this morning, Alayna?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, look, Wolf, we have seen them really do what they have done now over the last 24 hours, as they were trying to contain this story, which is to downplay the significance of this story, really kind of dismiss and deflect from its most egregious parts, especially when you look at these exact text messages, and try to disparage the journalist who was inadvertently added.

We can see clearly now because we have the text messages by Michael Waltz to this chat, Jeffrey Goldberg. I want to read for you just some of what we have heard.

BLITZER: All right, Alayna, hold on for a moment. Alayna, we're going to get back to you.

But Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, is asking some pointed questions. I want to listen in and get the answers from the witnesses.

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Lieutenant General Kruse, I'd like to talk to you about a couple things real quick.

Executive Order 13526, Section 1.4(a), this is the Trump administration's executive order with regard to classified information. It says: "Information shall be classified if its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security, including military plans, weapons systems, or operations."

You don't disagree that that's accurately quoted, right?

LT. GEN. JEFFREY KRUSE, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: That's an accurate quote from the executive order.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: And DOD 5200.01, this is the DOD's manual on classification, says -- quote -- "Information shall be classified if its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause describable damage to national security. This includes military plans, weapons systems, or operations."

You don't disagree that I quoted that accurately, right? KRUSE: That's also an accurate quote.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Can I show you the -- I'd like to show you the text that Secretary Hegseth actually published to the world.

Now, Lieutenant General Kruse, as Ranking Member Himes said, it says: "Time now. Weather is favorable. Just confirmed with CENTCOM we are a go for mission launch."

Then it says: "At 1:15 Eastern, F-18s launch first strike package."

F-18's are military systems, correct, weapon systems.

KRUSE: They are.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: OK, "13:45, trigger-based F-18 first strike window starts. Target terrorist is at his known location, so it should be on time. Also, strike drones launch MQ-9s." MQ-9s is a weapon system, correct?

KRUSE: They are.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: OK.

I think applying the executive order, as well as the DOD manual to this fact pattern, we clearly have weapon systems that have been identified. That is classified information.

Now, the reason why it's important that this information not be disclosed is that we don't want the adversaries to know what's about to happen, right, sir?

KRUSE: Well, I would draw a small distinction there. You referenced and asked if that platform, those two platforms are weapon systems. They are, but those terms are used all across the globe in a lot of contexts. So it's really about how they're used in the context of this particular document.

[11:10:01]

I just want to clarify that the use of those...

(CROSSTALK)

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I understand.

KRUSE: Yes.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: In this situation, those are operational details.

KRUSE: They are operational details, but, again, as you quoted the DOD instruction, it's about operations.

So, as you further go down into what are the operational details, I think, as we had a discussion yesterday, the important aspect, I think all of us are very familiar, we've seen... KRISHNAMOORTHI: This is classified information. This is classified information.

It's a weapons system, as well as sequence of strikes, as well as details about the operations. And so I think that just piggybacking off of what some other members have said, using the DOD's manual, as well as the executive order in operation today with the Trump administration, this text message is clearly classified information.

Secretary Hegseth has disclosed military plans, as well as classified information. He needs to resign immediately. He needs to resign immediately, and a full investigation needs to be undertaken with regard to whether other similar Signal chats are occurring in this administration.

I'd like to turn my attention to another topic.

Director Patel, according to the DOJ, in 2022, the FBI led Joint Terrorism Task Force, JTTF, in my hometown of Chicago, valiantly led efforts to prevent a plot to attack Naval Station Great Lakes in Illinois. You don't dispute that. Do you, sir?

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: I'm not familiar with it, but I don't dispute what you're telling me.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you.

A memo obtained by ABC7 News of Chicago said that this task force will now be -- quote -- "actively supporting" -- close quote -- the Department of Homeland Security and its immigration enforcement. You don't dispute that either, do you?

PATEL: I'm just not familiar with it, sir.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: OK. Sir, I just have to say, the DOJ has now tasked JTTFs to shift some resources to immigration enforcement efforts. And I don't say this lightly. If there's a terrorist attack anywhere in the country, including in Chicago, and it was because the JTTFs in part shifted resources, there will be hell to pay.

Thank you, sir.

REP. RICK CRAWFORD (R-AR): Gentlemen's times expired. Gentlemen from Georgia, Mr. Scott.

REP. AUSTIN SCOTT (R-GA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Director Gabbard, was the target terrorists...

BLITZER: All right, we're going to continue to monitor this important House Intelligence Committee hearing.

But I want to go back quickly to Alayna Treene over at the White House.

All right, Alayna, hold on for a moment. Let's listen to this question.

GABBARD: Congressman, no. No locations were named.

SCOTT: Thank you.

Director Patel, there was a specific accusation made about how close we are working with Mexico currently. My understanding, and I want to congratulate you on this, and I think it shows the shift of focus at the FBI since you have taken over to what it should have been doing all along, which is chasing the 10 most wanted that are threatening our country.

My understanding is that two of the three were actually arrested in Mexico and are being extradited back to the United States. Is that correct?

PATEL: Yes, sir. We have been working. One of the first meetings I took as FBI director was my counterpart, Secretary Harfuch in Mexico. And subsequent to that, we have extradited or expelled from Mexico two top 10 of the FBI's most wanted list and 33 other criminals.

SCOTT: Well, it sounds a little like we're working closer with them today than we have in the last several years, and that the focus of the FBI has shifted to actually protecting American citizens, instead of arresting pro-life protesters.

PATEL: Our mission is to find violent criminals wherever they are, and if they're in Mexico, we're going to get them.

SCOTT: Thank you. And I appreciate you, and I appreciate the change in the focus of the FBI.

I want to talk with you a little bit about the counterintelligence threats, one of which was an active-duty U.S. Army soldier charged with conspiring...

BLITZER: All right, we're going to continue to monitor this important House Intelligence Committee hearing and get reaction from newsmakers, also from our analysts.

We will take a quick break. Much more of our special coverage right here in THE SITUATION ROOM right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:18:49]

BLITZER: Welcome back to our special breaking news coverage right here in THE SITUATION ROOM. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

"The Atlantic" magazine releases more messages from the president's national security team from their group chat discussing U.S. military strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen.

Joining us now, retired U.S. General Wesley Clark, the former NATO supreme allied commander. General, thanks so much for joining us.

The Trump White House says this group chat, now published, a lot of the details, by "The Atlantic" magazine, did not contain classified information. And new this morning sources tell CNN that details shared by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, were indeed classified.

So let me tap into your expertise and your experience and tick through some of these messages. Listen to this.

This is the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and I'm quoting him now. "Team update," he said on the chat. "Time now. Weather is favorable. Just confirmed with CENTCOM," the U.S. military Central Command, "we are a go for mission launch."

General, would that kind of information be classified?

WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, it would be classified.

BLITZER: Yes. If you're telling the potential people who are listening in, and the Signal chat could potentially be monitored by Russia or Iran or China, for that matter, it would be highly classified.

[11:20:10]

Next line, let me quote this: "1215 Eastern time, F-18s launch, first strike package."

Is that classified, General?

CLARK: Absolutely.

BLITZER: And this line, now, "1:45 p.m., trigger-based F-18, first strike window starts. Target terrorist is his known location, so should be on time. Also, strike drones launch, MQ-9s."

Is this sensitive information potentially classified, and is it an actual war plan?

CLARK: I don't think it's a war plan. I mean, I think it's a war operation. This is not a plan. Again, they're releasing what's actually happening in real time.

And if you had -- if you were an adversary and you had complete, perfect intelligence, you would say, well, we already know that. But they don't have any way of knowing when a drone's been launched. They don't know what's a target package that has been launched.

So, yes, it puts your -- it would be information that would let you put your air defense on high alert, would tell people to take shelter and do other things. So, yes, it should be -- it's protected, sensitive information.

But, Wolf, you have got to be careful on this, because it may not be classified because nobody put the stamp on it that says secret. It's information that is oral information. It's national security information. It would be classified if it were published in an order.

And it would be stamped probably top secret. But -- and if it were in advance, it would probably be compartmented, in addition. But as it's spoken like this, I don't want a lawyer to come back and say, well, there's nothing that said it was classified. That's true enough.

BLITZER: Yes, but, based on experience, based on your knowledge, this type of information, providing specific details about a potential U.S. military airstrike against a target in Yemen, the Houthis in this particular case, that would in fact be classified, highly sensitive information.

CLARK: That's right.

BLITZER: We just heard from Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado. I want to play this little clip and get your reaction, General. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Thank you, Chairman.

General Haugh, the NSA recently warned its employees not to use the Signal app. Is that correct?

GEN. TIMOTHY HAUGH, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY: What we did, Congressman, is, we put out cybersecurity advisories on a whole host of systems.

(CROSSTALK)

CROW: On the Signal app, that was included in that advisory, right?

HAUGH: What we have done is we have put out an advisory on how to use the Signal app and other encrypted applications, because we do encourage our employees and their families to use encrypted apps.

CROW: Because there's risk to that app?

HAUGH: There are.

CROW: OK.

General Kruse, DOD also issued a warning about vulnerabilities to the Signal app recently, correct?

KRUSE: That's correct.

CROW: Director Gabbard, you were on the Signal text chain in question, correct?

GABBARD: Yes.

CROW: As was Mr. Witkoff, the administration's lead negotiator with the Russians, correct?

GABBARD: Yes.

CROW: And, at the time, Mr. Witkoff was actually in Russia during this chat discussion, was he not?

GABBARD: I was not aware of that.

CROW: Was he on his personal phone at the time?

GABBARD: I don't know.

CROW: Well, it's my understanding that he was indeed in Russia. Director Gabbard, you were also traveling during this discussion, correct?

GABBARD: Yes.

CROW: And where were you?

GABBARD: I was traveling through the Asia-Pacific region. I don't recall which country I was in at that time.

CROW: You don't remember the country?

GABBARD: I'd have to go back and look at the schedule.

CROW: Director Gabbard, I want to direct your attention again to the text chain where it says: "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?

GABBARD: Yes.

CROW: Director Gabbard, earlier in this hearing, we heard about the DOD's classification standards.

I want to now turn my attention to your classification standards. You're the director of national intelligence. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence classification guide says -- quote -- "Information providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing for an attack" and -- quote -- "is to be classified as top secret."

Are you familiar with that?

GABBARD: 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?

[11:25:03]

GABBARD: Correct.

CROW: General Kruse, are you familiar with this system?

KRUSE: I'm not wearing my glasses at the moment, but...

CROW: Well, I will help you out. This is an SA-3 anti-aircraft system.

KRUSE: Correct.

CROW: Are you familiar with this next system?

KRUSE: I am.

CROW: What is it?

KRUSE: I'm going to have to ask you to...

CROW: It's an SA-6.

KRUSE: I'm going to guess that it is...

CROW: This is also an advanced anti-aircraft system, is it not?

KRUSE: It is -- it was used widely in the Balkans in the '90s, correct.

CROW: And the Houthis also have this system, don't they?

KRUSE: They certainly do.

CROW: And they have employed it against our aircraft, have they not?

KRUSE: They have attempted to, correct.

CROW: I spent my life in service of this country. I deployed three times to combat in service to this nation. I learned in that time in service that responsibility is core to leadership.

You accept responsibility when things go wrong. You admit mistakes. You set the standard from the very top. It is completely outrageous to me, completely outrageous to me that administration officials come before us today with impunity, no acceptance of responsibility, excuse after excuse after excuse.

Well, we send our men and women downrange to do incredibly difficult, incredibly dangerous things on our behalf, and yet nobody is willing to come to us and say this was wrong, this was a breach of security, and we won't do it again.

It is outrageous and it is a leadership failure. And that's why Secretary Hegseth, who undoubtedly transmitted classified, sensitive operational information via this chain, must resign immediately. There can be no fixes, there can be no corrections and tell there is accountability.

And I'm calling on the administration to move forward with accountability.

I yield back.

CRAWFORD: The gentlemen yields.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, let's continue to monitor what's going on, on the Hill, but I want to get reaction from retired General Wesley Clark, the former NATO supreme allied commander.

You heard Jason Crow, the congressman, a Democrat of Colorado, make his point. What's your reaction, General?

CLARK: Well, it was a very strong set of statements.

Whether it is sufficient to call for the resignation of the secretary of defense, when he's been there for a couple of months, that's not a call that I make. In my military experience, I didn't make those calls, Wolf, so I'm not going to be able to give you a good answer on that.

It's a -- this is a partisan business. Let's face it, what it is. This is partisanship. It's payback. The Republican Party got all over Hillary Clinton for e-mails, and now the Democrats are coming back.

I do think that there was a serious mistake made. Signal shouldn't be used. The general said there -- he dodged the question. He should have accepted it directly. You don't discuss classified information on Signal. He should know that. He should also know the appearances of these former Soviet weapons systems.

That's basic information that every officer should learn at the major level, and you have got to keep up with the -- and do your homework. And so I was a little disappointed in that.

But I thought Congressman Crow made a great, strong statement about accountability. We're going to have to see what the administration does. I think it would be an important milestone if people are held accountable, but maybe it's something other than being forced out of office. Maybe it's a letter of reprimand.

Maybe it's something else that we don't see. But it's serious. It's a serious mistake. It's a rookie mistake, but it's a serious mistake. BLITZER: It's a very, very serious mistake. And we just heard from

lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, as we call it, make the point that releasing this kind of sensitive information in advance of a U.S. military strike is potentially extremely dangerous to U.S. military personnel.

I just want to get your thoughts on -- being a former NATO supreme allied commander, and if NATO were involved in an operation, a military operation.

Michael Waltz, President Trump's national security adviser, he said in this group chain, he said, the first target, that was what they're going to be -- of this military operation against the Houthi rebels, the first target, their top missile guy: "We had positive I.D. of him walking into his girlfriend's building, and it's now collapsed."