Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Interview With Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO); Firestorm Over Leaked Trump Administration Signal Chat Grows. Aired 11:30a-12:00p ET

Aired March 26, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: "We had positive I.D. of him walking into his girlfriend's building, and it's now collapsed."

We have later been told that this so-called top missile guy from the Houthis was killed. But from a military standpoint, would it be appropriate to bomb this building, and not only kill the top missile guy, but potentially his girlfriend who was there? That would be collateral damage.

Explain the thought. If they knew he was walking into a building to see his girlfriend, would it be militarily appropriate to bomb that building and potentially kill everybody inside?

WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Before you run an operation like this, you set up your collateral damage rules.

And so you normally say, what's the benefit of the strike and what's the cost and risk that you're willing to pay? And you know what the bomb damage is going to be because you know what it can do to a building, what it does to broken glass and so forth.

And you look at the potential casualties. But, in this case, you know this guy's a master leader of the enemy. He's walking into a building to see his girlfriend. Look, if it were up to me, I would have authorized the strike, absolutely.

BLITZER: Even knowing that the girlfriend might be killed?

CLARK: Look, the Houthis are doing incredible damage. I'm sorry, but my understanding of the laws of land warfare is, if you're going to launch that, and there were 100 innocent people in that building, no, I wouldn't do it. I'd wait for him to come out.

But one person and his girlfriend, I would have asked -- if I had to have permission, I would have said, sir, I recommend this go ahead. We have got this guy identified. We know where he is. We may not get another chance at this. This -- taking this guy out will be a significant reduction in risk to the fleet, to civilian traffic in the Red Sea area.

He's put himself in the crosshairs of international justice. And I'm sorry about the girlfriend. She knows who she's dating. I'm sorry. BLITZER: Yes, that's what we call collateral damage, an awful

situation. We don't know the fate of the girlfriend, but they did say, and Michael Waltz did say, the building is now collapsed. So we assume that whole building was destroyed in the U.S. airstrike against this top missile guy for the Houthis.

General Clark, we will continue this conversation. I don't want you to go too far away.

We're watching what's happening. A pivotal Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill is continuing right now. I will speak with the Democratic member we just heard from, asked some very, very specific questions. Democratic Congressman Jason Crow is standing by to join us live.

Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:37:35]

BLITZER: We're following the breaking news up on Capitol Hill, the House Intelligence Committee grilling top U.S. intelligence officials about that very, very sensitive, explosive group chat that several of them had with "The Atlantic" magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg.

And we're going to continue to monitor that. But, right now, I want to get some serious analysis from CNN's Alex Marquardt, Evan Perez.

And, Alex, let me start with you.

I want to play for a moment what we heard from the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth overnight. Just listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Nobody's texting war plans. I know exactly what I'm doing, exactly what we're directing. And I'm really proud of what we accomplished, successful missions that night and going forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: It was a successful mission, but they were discussing war plans, right?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: They are really taking issue with this characterization of war plans.

And you have heard Wesley Clark there pushing back a little bit, but without question, these are plans about a strike, plans about an operation, plans about this attack. And so that's kind of a weak argument.

The secretary there was also asked whether he had declassified the information in this chat, which he has the right to do. And we may eventually see this argument from Hegseth and others that in fact this was declassified by Pete Hegseth.

But, for the moment, he's not saying that it was. And so we have to assume, as we have been told by officials and experts, that what was included in that chat was indeed classified. And I think...

BLITZER: He would have had to declassify...

MARQUARDT: Correct.

BLITZER: ... all that information before the chat started, right?

MARQUARDT: As someone who has this original classification authority, as it's known, he has the ability to essentially wave a magic wand and declassify that information.

But he hasn't said that in the chat and he hasn't said that in public. And I think we also need to remind everyone that the real risk here is, had it not been Jeffrey Goldberg, had it been a Russian official who Mike Waltz talks to or an Iranian official who has accidentally added to the chat, they would have been privy to this extraordinary level of detail.

And they could have Fed that to the Houthis themselves, thereby putting American service members in those jets, on those ships in harm's way. And that was a point that Congressman Jason Crow was just making.

BLITZER: All right, I want to quickly go back to the hearing. There's an interesting development unfolding right now. Let's listen in.

DEL. STACEY PLASKETT (D-VI): ... across the board. And that's disappointing, at the very least, very disappointing.

Director Gabbard, thank you for your testimony.

[11:40:02]

And one of the things that I believe I heard you say was that, when there was a discussion by DOGE as to the cuts to foreign aid, that there had not been a request for a national -- for an intelligence and national security or an intelligence assessment of the impact of those cuts.

Is that -- was that your testimony a little earlier?

TULSI GABBARD, U.S. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Congresswoman, I have not seen any kind of assess -- actual official assessment either within the intelligence community or outside of it on what the effects of those cuts to USAID programs has been.

PLASKETT: But it was not requested by DOGE of you or of any of the areas in which you have oversight over?

GABBARD: I'm not aware of any requests.

PLASKETT: OK. Great. Thank you. I know that there has been some open-source reporting on what the

effect of those cuts are. I mean, when we think about several examples, Kenya, our strongest regional ally in the Horn of Africa and a key partner with us in the fight against terrorist group Al-Shabaab, and according to "The Washington Post," that's not definitive, and we can talk about this in closed session.

Some Kenyan journalists are now being trained by Beijing, mirroring the U.S. programs that have been cut by the administration. Director Gabbard, is letting China train Kenyan journalists going to make Kenya more or less receptive to American requests of the Kenyan government, do you believe?

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

But, right now, we have got a member, a key member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado is joining us.

Congressman, thanks so much for stepping outside for a few minutes and helping us better appreciate what's going on.

You just had a chance to grill these Trump intelligence and military officials about this stunning intelligence brief -- breach. Did you get the answers that you need?

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): No, I didn't, Wolf.

The more we learn about this, the more outrageous this becomes. I haven't jumped to conclusions. I actually have been just gathering information, gathering facts, because I never want to politicize national security stuff. This is our most solemn responsibility.

But, listen, it's very clear what happened here. It's just very clear. I mean, anybody can see this, right? They talked about mission planning and operational information over a non-secure chain. That is classified information by the Directorate of National Intelligence's own standards.

But what's worse is that they just won't admit it. They won't accept responsibility. They won't say what everybody else knows to be true. They're just hiding it. They're trying to sweep it under the rug, and that's what's most shocking to me.

BLITZER: And they're testifying under oath, right?

CROW: They are.

BLITZER: Are Trump officials, in the process, not telling the American people the truths when they continue to insist war plans and classified information weren't even being discussed?

CROW: Well, certainly, their story seems to change by the day. Yesterday, they were before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Today, they're telling a different story, largely before the House Intelligence Committee.

So I'm really concerned about their lack of candor, them distorting the truth, their inability to remember key facts like who was on the text chain, what country you were in when you were actually texting, really pretty stunning stuff that, as a high-level, high-functioning individual, you should know.

Where in the world were you?

BLITZER: Do you think the Trump administration, Congressman, understands how damaging potentially this kind of information could be in the wrong hands?

CROW: Well, they should.

I mean, I'm not inside the mind of Donald Trump or these folks. I don't spend my time inside of their minds. It's not where I want to go. But this is very damaging stuff. I think I made a pretty clear case just a few minutes ago that the Houthis, who are the organization that was the subject of the strikes, actually are a very sophisticated military rebel group.

They have some of the most advanced anti-aircraft systems in the world. They have indeed shot down U.S. weapons systems, thankfully unmanned U.S. weapons systems. But we just sent pilots, Americans, our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, to do an extremely risky strike over enemy territory not too long ago, and the people sending them into harm's way to do that strike were talking about it in advance of the strike over a non-secure platform.

Everybody should be appalled by that.

BLITZER: You mentioned the changing stories that have emerged from inside the Trump administration.

I want to listen in the last 24 hours to some of the things they said. I think we have a clip. We don't have a clip, but they have been saying different things, revising and changing their points of view repeatedly. What do you make of that?

CROW: Well, what I make of it is, they know they have done wrong. They know this was a major mistake. They don't want to accept responsibility. They don't want to fix it.

[11:45:06]

They just want it to go away and they want to ignore it. But we're not going to let it go away and ignore it, because our men and women in uniform, our troops, deserve better, right?

Look, I can't sit here in the Capitol in Washington, D.C., and sleep at night if I don't think things are fixed that are life-and-death things for the troops that we send to protect us. I will not stop until I get an acknowledgement that this was not OK, that this was a mistake, and they tell us clearly how they're going to fix it.

Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the trajectory we're on right now.

BLITZER: Yes.

You're a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congressman. If someone had leaked this kind of information about an operation, a military operation you were about to begin, how disastrous potentially could that have been when you were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan?

CROW: Yes, people could die. It's just as simple as that.

If the enemy knows you're coming or has advanced warning, people will die. That's what we're dealing with here, right? And that's why it's so serious. And that's why we can't stop asking questions and pushing them. And it's -- more importantly than that, this is just not about oversight. It's not about asking questions.

This just needs to be fixed, right? I want guarantees this is not going to happen again, that it's not going on right now. And, frankly, they just don't take it seriously, right? The impunity and the lack of seriousness that the administration has about our most sensitive secrets and our riskiest military missions is really the worst part of the story here.

BLITZER: So I would assume, Congressman, you would support a full- scale nationwide 9/11-type commission of inquiry to learn precisely what happened, why Jeffrey Goldberg was brought into this conversation on Signal, and to learn the lessons to make sure it never happens again? Is that right?

CROW: Yes. I mean, I don't care what it looks like, commission, inquiry, special inspector general. I mean, you can call it and organize it however you want. I just want the answers. And I want the Trump administration to say, we messed up, this shouldn't have happened.

I want accountability. And also, let's also say, this is why you don't put an unqualified person in charge of the Department of Defense, somebody who's never run large national security organizations before. Months ago, I said, this is why Hegseth is unqualified, because he doesn't know how to do this, right?

He doesn't know because he's never done it before. He has no experience. This is where experience matters. And we actually see this in real time now.

BLITZER: So, Congressman...

CROW: He's acting like somebody who doesn't know what they're doing.

BLITZER: ... for the good of the country, the good of the U.S. military, should the defense secretary, Hegseth, resign?

CROW: Yes, absolutely.

Listen, you have to at the top set the standard of accountability. If anybody below him in the chain of command had done the same thing, they would have been done, right? They would have been fired. There would have been a court-martial. There would have been an investigation.

So are you telling me that the people at the top of the organization have a different standard, that they're immune from accountability? That is the opposite of how it's supposed to be.

BLITZER: All right.

CROW: The further up you go and the more responsibility you have, the more accountability you should have.

BLITZER: Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado, thank you very much for joining us.

And we will be right back with more news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:52:44]

BLITZER: All right, breaking news coming into CNN right now.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has just released a new statement about this controversial group chat and whether or not the information was indeed classified information that was being discussed, the major line of questioning up on Capitol Hill today.

Evan Perez is still with me.

You have got this statement. I know our viewers are anxious to hear what he's saying now.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, exactly, Wolf.

And now the explanation or his response has really shifted on really focusing on the term war plans, which is a specific term that the Pentagon uses. And that's what they're quibbling with. I will read you just a part of what Pete Hegseth says on X.

He says; "So let me get this straight. 'The Atlantic' released the so- called war plans and those plans include no names, no targets, no locations, no units, no routes, no sources, no methods, and no classified information. Those are some really shitty war plans. This only proves one thing, that Jeff Goldberg has never seen a war plan or an attack plan, as he now calls it, not even close."

Wolf, I will note that Pete Hegseth shared that this attack was coming at 11:44 that morning. The attack was supposed to start at 12:15 p.m., so about 30 minutes. This is enough time -- again, if this had fallen into the wrong hands, not in Jeffrey Goldberg's hands, this could have prepared the Houthis.

Their air defenses are sophisticated enough that they could have shot down some U.S. assets that were carrying out this attack. Again, he is quibbling with the term war plans, but it's clear that this is information that should not have been on a Signal chat.

BLITZER: Right now, they're talking about Hegseth in the hearing. I want to listen in.

REP. JIMMY GOMEZ (D-CA): ... in a matter of days, not weeks or months, days.

So, one of the things we're going to look into is if -- what actually occurred, because the American people deserve a full accounting. Additionally, the main person who was involved in this thread that a lot of people want to talk to is Secretary of Defense Hegseth.

And a lot of questions were brought up regarding his drinking habits in his confirmation hearing. To your knowledge, do you know whether Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leak classified information?

[11:55:08]

GABBARD: I don't have any knowledge of Secretary Hegseth's personal habits.

GOMEZ: Director Ratcliffe, same question, yes or no.

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: You know, no, I'm going to answer that. I think that's an offensive line of questioning. The answer is no.

I find it interesting that you want to know -- no, I'm going to answer.

(CROSSTALK)

GOMEZ: Hey, I yield back. This is my time.

(CROSSTALK)

RATCLIFFE: You asked me a question. Do you want an answer?

GOMEZ: No, listen, it's a yes or no.

RATCLIFFE: You don't want to focus on the good work that the CIA is doing, that the intelligence community...

(CROSSTALK)

GOMEZ: Director, I reclaim my time. Director, I reclaim my time.

Here -- I have huge respect for the CIA, huge respect for our men and women in uniform. But this was a question that's on the top of minds of every American, right? He stood in front of a podium in Europe holding a drink. So, of course, we want to know if his performance is compromised.

If your people were asking if the -- General Austin was compromised because of a heart issue...

RATCLIFFE: Was his performance compromised because of a successful strike?

(CROSSTALK)

GOMEZ: I yield back. Mr. -- I bring my -- I reclaim my time.

RATCLIFFE: You want to know -- you want to talk about accepting responsibility?

GOMEZ: I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.

(CROSSTALK)

RATCLIFFE: Do you think he should accept responsibility for a successful strike to make Americans safer?

(CROSSTALK)

GOMEZ: I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time.

So here's the thing. This is serious. As somebody -- we have been briefed in this committee about using Signal. One of the things they basically said, the most secure, phone call, the least secure, text messaging.

And we know that your people are -- Russians, Chinese are on your phones.

REP. RICK CRAWFORD (R-AR): The gentleman's time has expired.

The gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Cline.

REP. BEN CLINE (R-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to give the director the ability to respond without being interrupted by his questioner.

RATCLIFFE: Well, I appreciate that, Congressman.

I guess just a general reflection here, again, that for the last two days, members of the intelligence community have been asking questions about a Signal messaging group, and not asking questions from Democrats either in the Senate or the House on China, Russia, Iran, and the real threats that are going on to the United States.

And you can say that you care about the good work that agencies are doing like the CIA, and that you care about 140 stars on the wall. But no one's asked me about my second day on the job here, where I lit the fuse that led to a foreign government participating with us to capture one of the senior planners of the Abbey Gate bombing that killed 13 Americans.

And in the process, we worked with a government that previously hadn't, so that -- that hadn't cooperated with us on counterterrorism matters.

Or the fact no one has focused on that within an hour of that taking place, I was on the phone with Director Patel and a few hours later with Attorney General Bondi working together, the I.C. and the FBI working together to bring this person home in less than a week, unprecedented success for the intelligence community and the law enforcement community, exactly representative of the kind of work that we should be doing and the kind of work that an Oversight Committee should be asking about.

But instead, we're getting questions about whether or not someone has drinking habits. And I just wish in an annual threats hearing, where the American people want to hear about threats, that that's what we would be talking about. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

CLINE: Absolutely, Director. I want to thank you and all the people who work with you and all the witnesses and the men and women, the brave men and women.

BLITZER: All right, so this hearing is going to continue for a few more minutes, and then maybe they will be going into closed-door session.

At the same time, we will, of course, continue to monitor all the late breaking developments.

To our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning. Lots of important breaking news. We're going to continue following all the breaking news coverage in the course of this hearing and all the other important news.

I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM.

"INSIDE POLITICS," today with Manu Raju filling in for Dana Bash, starts right now.

MANU RAJU, CNN HOST: Welcome to INSIDE POLITICS. I'm Manu Raju, in for Dana Bash.

And we're following breaking news. The nation's top intelligence officials are on Capitol Hill right now, answering a barrage of questions about critical new developments in the colossal security scandal engulfing the White House.

The previously scheduled hearing began just moments after "The Atlantic" published screen grabs from now-infamous Trump administration group chat discussing an upcoming military strike in Yemen.