Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Immigration Showdown; Trump Administration Seeks to Ban Transgender Service Members; China Rebuffs Trump Trade Overtures; Trump Issues Rare Criticism of Putin; Pete Hegseth Under Fire. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired April 24, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:01:54]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Happening now: brand-new CNN reporting on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his use of the Signal messaging app, this as he meets with NATO's secretary-general about the war in Ukraine.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown, and you're in the SITUATION ROOM.

We begin this hour with a critical meeting unfolding this morning over at the Pentagon, the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, sitting down with the head of NATO. Their meeting comes as Hegseth, Pamela, is facing very disturbing new questions about his use of an app to share sensitive military information.

BROWN: Right.

And our Natasha Bertrand is right here in THE SITUATION ROOM to walk us through your new reporting, Natasha.

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Pam and Wolf, so what we're told is that, weeks before it first emerged that Secretary of Defense Hegseth was using Signal to discuss sensitive military operations, an aide, a very trusted aide to Secretary Hegseth, actually had Signal installed on one of Secretary Hegseth's desktop computers inside his office at the Pentagon.

After it emerged that Secretary Hegseth was using Signal to discuss this very sensitive information, that same aide, we are told, made an unusual request to the DOD's chief information officer, which was, hey, can Secretary Hegseth be granted an exception so that he could continue using Signal freely inside the building?

Now, that question, we're told, it really raised eyebrows among other senior DOD officials, particularly coming from a person who was at that time a uniformed official. It seemed like something perhaps the civilian chief of staff should do.

But this person has really -- this person who is -- his name is Ricky Buria. He's really become one of Hegseth's closest and most trusted advisers, and that's really reflected in how he was helping Hegseth set up the Signal apparatus inside of his office.

And we're told that Hegseth really appreciates how Buria is kind of -- he says, "Yes, sir," and he helps him with all of the things that he wants done very quickly. And so this Signal aspect of all of this, it not only reflects how important he has become in his inner circle, especially as that inner circle has really shrunk.

It also reflects how key Signal was to Secretary Hegseth's kind of day-to-day functioning inside the department and how much he relied on it.

BROWN: It certainly is.

I also would ask you about the -- this morning's meeting between Hegseth and NATO's secretary-general. What do we know about that?

BERTRAND: Yes. So, Secretary General Rutte, he is meeting this morning with Secretary Hegseth in the Pentagon, and they are expected to discuss, of course, the progress of the cease-fire talks between Russia and Ukraine.

Hegseth is expected to express and relay President Trump's frustrations with the progress, or lack thereof, of these peace talks.

But Secretary Hegseth, writ large, he's really tried to pull back from a leading role in coordinating and allowing the U.S. to provide military aid and other forms of aid to the Ukrainians, because, of course, that's not the priority for the Trump administration right now, even as Secretary Rutte has said repeatedly, NATO stands unwaveringly behind the Ukrainians in this moment.

[11:05:03]

BROWN: All right, Natasha Bertrand, thanks so much -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Good reporting. Thank you, Natasha, for me as well.

Over at the White House this morning, President Trump issuing a very rare criticism of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, for deadly strikes in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv overnight less than a day after he signaled a cease-fire deal could be imminent.

CNN's chief national affairs correspondent, Jeff Zeleny, is over at the White House for us this morning.

Jeff, what is the president saying today?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, one thing is clear. The cease-fire, deal is not imminent at all.

And, certainly, the bombs falling in Kyiv have been one sign of that. There's been a rising frustration here at the White House that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has not accepted the U.S. deal.

But, of course, it is Russia that, A, started this conflict more than three years ago and also is continuing the bombing, but the president doing something that he has rarely done earlier today, and that is speaking out in fairly forceful terms against the Russian president, against that aggression.

Let's take a look at this message that he posted on a TRUTH Social, his social media account, earlier today.

He says this: "I'm not happy with the Russian strikes on Kyiv. Not necessary and very bad timing. Vladimir, stop; 5,000 soldiers a week are dying. Let's get the peace deal done."

Wolf, those two words, "Vladimir, stop," are two words that I cannot recall hearing from the U.S. president really since he's been in office, not just this time, but the first time as well. He's long had a close connection with Vladimir Putin, some would say a fascination with, and he rarely has spoken ill of him.

He has had many sharp things to say about President Zelenskyy. But the bottom line here is that this cease-fire deal that has been proposed weeks and weeks ago does not seem anywhere close to being done, but no response from Russia yet on this, but, certainly, this is front and center at the White House, even as Steve Witkoff, the president's envoy, is making another visit to Russia and likely to meet with Vladimir Putin, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Jeff Zeleny over at the White House for us.

Jeff, thank you very much -- Pamela.

BROWN: And, Wolf, also new this morning, Chinese officials flatly rejecting President Trump's latest trade war overtures, and they're borrowing one of his favorite catch phrases to shoot down his claims of daily trade talks, calling them -- quote -- "fake news."

This comes as the president is hinting at another key trade war escalation, the restarting of a slew of global tariffs.

CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich joins us live from the New York Stock Exchange this morning.

So, the roller coaster continues, right, Vanessa?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

Well, Pamela, today, on Wall Street, stocks are up slightly, and there's some buoyed optimism from investors, despite the fact that we have heard mixed messaging from the White House and from China about where this trade war actually stands.

But investors and analysts say that they're sort of a little bit optimistic because we did hear from the White House and the treasury secretary at one point over the last 24 hours that there may be a de- escalation coming, of course, no deals yet, which is ultimately what investors and traders are waiting for.

I spoke to Greg -- Greg McBride. He's the chief, analyst at Bankrate, and he told me that investors, traders are very sensitive to news lines. So we could see some volatility today if we hear from the White House again, if we hear from China again. So nothing is settled yet, but, really, markets off to a good start today.

But it's worth noting, Pamela, that, since February, markets have lost $6.5 trillion in value. And, since April, since that announcement about these tariffs and reciprocal tariffs, the market has shed $2.5 trillion. So, while it's encouraging to see green on the screen right now, it certainly doesn't erase the losses that investors have seen in the past couple weeks, Pamela.

BROWN: Yes. And we're also seeing the impact this is all having on home sales. We have some new reporting on that. What do we know there?

YURKEVICH: Yes.

So, existing home sales fell by about 6 percent in March from the month before. And the spring shopping season for homes usually is when things start to ramp up. So that is a significant decline. We haven't seen a steep decline like that since November of 2022. And we haven't seen sort of a pace like this in March since 2009.

And what this really signals is the fact that home prices in March have actually risen to a new record for the month of March, so that was cost-prohibitive for many buyers. And then, of course, there's the uncertainty about what the economy looks like, which is holding some buyers back.

Also worth noting, though, in this report from the National Association of Realtors that new home prices are actually now lower than existing home prices, and that's quite unusual in this market, so just really a reflection of sort of the confusion and uncertainty among homebuyers, but also, Pamela, the market itself.

BROWN: All right, Vanessa Yurkevich, thank you so much -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And still ahead, Pamela, why a federal judge is giving the Trump administration another week to provide more details about what it's doing to get Kilmar Abrego Garcia home.

[11:10:08]

BROWN: And FEMA is losing some of its most experienced workers weeks before the start of hurricane season.

You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:15:00]

BROWN: Breaking news into THE SITUATION ROOM.

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to let it begin enforcing a ban on transgender service members.

BLITZER: I want to go to our chief Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic, right now.

So, Joan, give us the significance of this late-breaking development.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure. Good to see you, Wolf and Pamela.

This just came in. This is yet another one of Donald Trump's initiatives that are being challenged in the federal courts and have made their -- its way to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration is asking the justices to block lower court rulings that have barred the administration from blocking transgender members from active duty, transgender members of the military services from serving or from letting any new recruits come in who are transgender.

This is a really important development today. This piece of the Trump initiatives happens to be part of the whole culture wars agenda he has had, particularly against transgender individuals. But just think how broadly we have got so many different challenges up here to the administration's, immigration policies, deportation policies, efforts to remove heads of independent agencies.

Now this one comes squarely on an issue that, as we know, he ran on back in November against any kind of LGBTQ interests. And this one says, while lower court judges have blocked this policy from taking effect, blocked this prohibition on transgender people serving in the military, the Trump administration wants the policy to be enforced while the merits on the litigation play out.

So it would be a big deal if the Supreme Court were to agree to this. And I can tell you right now, Wolf and Pamela, the Supreme Court has been trying to slow down all the litigation, and I don't see it acting immediately on this to let the administration have its way.

It's likely to ask for a response from the other side, and we will see how this one plays out, as so many other disputes over Trump initiatives are playing out right now at the High Court.

BROWN: Absolutely.

Joan Biskupic, thank you very much -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And we could, Pamela, be on the verge of yet another showdown between President Trump and the court system over his immigration policy.

A Trump-appointed federal judge in Maryland has just ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a Venezuelan asylum seeker deported to El Salvador.

CNN's Priscilla Alvarez is here in THE SITUATION ROOM following the story for us.

Priscilla, this is, what, the second time now the Trump administration has been ordered to secure the return of a man sent to El Salvador. What do we know about this latest case? PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Second time, and

still all related to those deportation flights that happened in mid- March of migrants in immigration detention in the United States to El Salvador.

Now, here's what we know about this case. It's a 20-year-old Venezuelan asylum seeker. The reason that this is problematic is because, back in 2024, there was a settlement that was reached that essentially blocked this asylum seeker, along with others who came in as unaccompanied minors to the United States, from being deported until their asylum claims were adjudicated.

Now, the judge in this case called this -- quote -- "a breach of contract" because, again, if the asylum case was still ongoing, then they should not have been deported back -- or not back to Venezuela, but deported at all, in this case to El Salvador.

Now the administration's argument here is two things. Number one, similar to what we heard in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, because they have been deemed alien enemies, because they have been deported in this way, they -- therefore, their withholding in the Abrego Garcia case or in this case the asylum doesn't matter anymore.

That has generally not been holding much water in the courts. The other part of this, the administration says, is that this individual, a Venezuelan asylum seeker, was arrested in January for possession of cocaine. So they're also saying that he had convictions against him.

So this is a case that will be ongoing, but it is yet another example of how problematic just these three flights in March have been for this administration, as they have tried to defend them, not only in the public forum, but also in court.

BLITZER: And all of this, Priscilla, comes as the judge overseeing the Abrego Garcia case paused the discovery process that was under way to determine whether the Trump administration was doing anything, anything to return him from El Salvador.

What's behind this new development?

ALVAREZ: Well, this is a really interesting development because it suggests -- or, rather, states that there has been some agreement here that we don't know much about behind the scenes between the government and also between Abrego Garcia's attorneys for this judge to make the decision to pause the fact-finding process.

She didn't say anything more as to why that is. But, remember, this is a judge that has been very stern and very terse in her words to the Justice Department because she has felt over the course of this case that they have been stonewalling, which is -- has led to her ask for expedited discovery, which has led to her asking for daily status updates.

[11:20:05]

But now all of that is on pause. Now, we're still trying to understand a little bit more as to what the agreement was behind the scenes that would have prompted her to pause this, but really interesting development to keep an eye out on, as this case also proceeds, but now with that discovery on pause.

BLITZER: Priscilla Alvarez, thank you very, very much -- Pamela.

BROWN: And the judge in the latest case, as you noted, was a Trump- appointed judge. It is notable because we have seen the White House attack these judges.

BLITZER: That's right.

BROWN: All right, we are joined now by retired immigration Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor.

Thank you for coming on.

I want to first go to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Why would the judge put the brakes on the fact-finding process, especially given her clear frustration with the Trump administration's lack of action and transparency?

A. ASHLEY TABADDOR, FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGE: Good morning.

Well, thank you for having me on.

Well, as you know, this is late-breaking news, and I don't have specific examples or understanding of exactly what's going on. But, based on what I have heard and what you have just described, maybe it is the first step that the administration is taking to do what is right.

I mean, in my entire time with the Department of Justice, both as an assistant U.S. attorney and as a immigration judge, I have never seen a situation in which a case like this would drag on to this level. The administration is very much acting as if they are the judge, jury, and the executioner.

And had we not had an independent judiciary, as we do now and has been standing up, we wouldn't be able to even discover these kinds of issues coming up. So I'm hoping that this means that the government is finally going to take some steps to correct what has obviously been a very grave error in this case.

BROWN: We have this other case that she just laid out of a federal judge ordering the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a migrant who was deported to El Salvador.

Do you see another clash brewing between the White House and the courts on this one?

TABADDOR: I mean, we have seen the pattern from day one, again, as the administration is trying to play judge, jury, and executioner, trying to work outside the law.

They describe the law as an inconvenience. They do not want to be accountable. They just want to do whatever they want to do, remove people to wherever they want to remove them for whatever reason. And that is the fundamental flaw in what we're seeing.

We are a constitutional democracy. That's why we have a system of checks and balances. That's why having an independent judiciary is very important to ensure accountability and ensure that the errors that we're seeing straight out of the gate are not to reoccur with the approaches to enforcement.

You can have a very, very viable and effective enforcement tactic without violating people's due process rights, which are guaranteed by the Constitution.

BROWN: So, on that note, we know that the government makes mistakes sometimes, right, which is why due process is so important in our legal system.

In your experience as an immigration judge, did the government ever deport or try to deport the wrong person or make a big mistake to show why it is so important to have due process?

TABADDOR: In my experience, both as an assistant U.S. attorney, as well as an immigration judge for over 15 years, as well as a chief counsel with USCIS at the Department of Homeland Security, I did see instances of the government making a mistake and removing people without sometimes checking the databases and finding out that their removal was illegal.

I can assure you that, in every instance, that error was immediately corrected. And I think that's perhaps one of the reasons that my colleague, the Department of Justice attorney who appeared on the case and who was then fired for being candid with the court was taken aback, because the entire practice and just the principles that the Department of Justice and the government worked on is to make sure you do the right thing.

And I think he was just surprised, like all of us were surprised. I thought that case was going to go away in a nanosecond. I thought the government was just going to come and say, we're sorry. We made an error. Give us a little bit of time. We're going to correct it.

So, the fact that they have doubled down on it and the fact that they have changed the narrative is really pause for concern. That's why we're seeing multiple, multiple instances of error and multiple, multiple instances of the government just wanting to be able to function outside the law. And that's very problematic.

BROWN: Just to ask about the withholding order on Abrego Garcia, he had one to go to El Salvador. He could be deported elsewhere.

The White House has said, well, that withholding order is no longer active because they say that he is a member of the MS-13 gang, which is a foreign terrorist organization, designated as one. We should know Abrego Garcia has denied he's a member.

[11:25:01] But can the White House unilaterally just wipe away a withholding order, or does a judge, an immigration judge who issued it, is that the person who under the law is supposed to decide whether it's still effective or not -- in effect, I should say?

TABADDOR: Yes.

Yes, their assertion is just inaccurate, incorrect. When there is an order that withholds or provides protection to someone from being removed to their country of nationality, if you want to have that order changed or somehow rescinded or terminated, there are processes in place.

The government is supposed to come back and provide notice and allow the party to allow the court to hear about it and find out, well, what is the basis for you claiming this?

Again, we keep going back to the same theme, judge, jury, and executioner. We cannot live in a system where one branch of the government takes on all of the roles of the three governments. That's why -- of the three branches. That's why we have separation of powers.

And I think, in this case, again, if there is a claim that the -- that the -- Abrego should not be provided protection from removal to El Salvador, that should have been done through the process, through the process that are within the Department of Justice.

BROWN: All right, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, thank you so much -- Wolf.

TABADDOR: Thank you for having me.

BLITZER: And thank you, Pamela.

And still ahead, there's more breaking news we're following, an arrest in those devastating wildfires that burned at least 15,000 acres in Southern New Jersey.

We have new reporting just coming in to THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:30:00]