Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Distances Himself From Group Chat: "I Wasn't Involved"; Trump: 25 Percent Tariff On All Imported Cars Begin April 2; Search Underway For Four U.S. Soldiers Missing In Lithuania. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 26, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
DAVID CULVER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: --and so while folks may look at this, from a positive perspective, from a discipline of those who actually have committed these horrendous acts. Those who are now in this experimental stage, if you will, of trying to figure out if they're going to be there indefinitely or be able to get out. I mean, it's left them in a limbo, essentially.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Yes. David Culver, thanks very much.
A quick programming note. The final episode of "Twitter: Breaking the Bird" airs this Sunday at 10:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, here on CNN.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. See you, tomorrow.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
See for yourselves the messages at the center of the Signal storm containing detailed attack plans about when American pilots would be in the air, potentially putting their lives at risk.
At the White House today, the President shifted his answer on whether those messages included classified information, with Trump saying one thing, as his press secretary said another. I'll take you inside the West Wing.
And tonight, a member of the Trump Cabinet will join me live.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, with his Defense Secretary, Director of National Intelligence, CIA Director, and National Security Advisor, caught up in a rapidly-evolving scandal, President Trump is returning to one of his most reliably-used phrases, as he downplays the fallout from a group chat where sensitive military strikes were discussed, while also distancing himself from it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't know about downplaying. The press up-plays it. I think it's all a witch-hunt. That's all. I think it's a witch-hunt. I wasn't involved with it. I don't -- I wasn't there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: Now, this is the President responding for the first time, since The Atlantic released the full transcript of the messages, after the publication's Editor-in-Chief was accidentally added to a thread on an unsecure app, about imminent military attacks in Yemen.
After Trump and his aides have said for days, as their main line of defense, that that chat did not include classified information, the President appeared to backtrack on that today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you still believe nothing classified was shared?
TRUMP: Well, that's what I've heard. I don't know. I'm not sure. You'll have to ask the various people involved. I really don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: Now, compare what you heard there to just yesterday, when we were in the Cabinet Room with the President, and asked him about those strike details, which he said he was told were not classified.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It wasn't classified information. So this was not classified. Now, if it's classified information, it's probably a little bit different.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: Now, what happened between those comments yesterday, and the ones he made in the Oval Office today, was the President being personally and fully briefed on the conversation that happened, the full conversation that was released this morning, by The Atlantic. Something that happened shortly before the White House press briefing, where the press secretary maintained that the President still felt the same way he did yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: One on a follow-up on something you just said. But since we have these messages released, and you said that the President has now personally reviewed them. At the chat, at one point, Pete Hegseth wrote, 1415: Strike Drones on Target, and in all-caps, he said, THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP.
Does the President feel that he was misled by his national security advisers, whoever it was that told him there was no classified information in there, now that he's seen these messages?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I've now been asked and answered this question three times by the both of you, and I've given you my answer. The President feels the same today as he did yesterday.
K. COLLINS: OK. And on my -- sorry. And my follow-up on what you had just said--
LEAVITT: Go ahead, Philip (ph).
K. COLLINS: I have a--
LEAVITT: Kaitlan, I'm not taking your follow-up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Vice President expressed--
K. COLLINS: I have a follow-up on something you just said though, Karoline, that's regarding the--
LEAVITT: Kaitlan, I'm not taking your follow-up. Philip (ph), go ahead. I've called you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: We'll talk about that follow-up question in a moment.
But classified or not, we also heard today from the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who was included on that group chat. Today, he confirmed MAR was yes, him, and he made clear how he views things.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Obviously, someone made a mistake, someone made a big mistake, and added a journalist. Nothing against journalists, but you ain't supposed to be on that thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: His colleague that he's referencing there is the National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, who has acknowledged that he was the one who added Jeffrey Goldberg to that Signal chat. He says he doesn't know how it happened, but it was him.
And of course, when you're reading through these messages, and I'll take you through the full messages in a moment, it was the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, who was on that thread, who sent the majority of those precise details via Signal.
Today, the President was asked about both of those aides, and whether or not he has confidence in them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Mike Waltz, I guess he said he claimed responsibility, I would imagine. Had nothing to do with anyone else. It was Mike, I guess. I don't know. I was told it was Mike.
Hegseth is doing a great job. He had nothing to do with this. (CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Hegseth? How do you bring Hegseth into it?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
K. COLLINS: Now that we have those messages, you can see why Hegseth is brought into this. And of course, you can decide for yourself if this is something that should be classified or closely-guarded.
Roughly two hours before those strikes happened, and about 30 minutes before the first fighter jets took off, Secretary Hegseth shared a team update with this group that he didn't realize included a reporter.
He said, Central Comm was going to go ahead with launching the mission, and at 12:15 Eastern, the first set of F-18 fighter jets would take off the exact time they would be in the air. He adds that soon after, the window for those fighters to strike would open, because the target terrorist would be at his known location, and that strike drones would be launching as well.
Hegseth continued, more fighter jets would take off at 02:10 Eastern. And five minutes later, the strike drones would be on target, and that would be quote, quoting Pete Hegseth now, The first time "BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP." Then the second set of strikes from F-18 will start along with missiles.
And Hegseth included a very important reminder here. He said, We are currently clean on OPSEC. That's an acronym for Operational Security. It was an assurance to everyone who was on that text messages, all the other Trump officials, that the mission was secure.
The chat itself, on the other hand, is now at the center of this storm.
My sources tonight are an experienced group of former National Security, Defense and Intelligence officials.
And Beth Sanner, I want to start with you, because you were the former Deputy Director of National Intelligence. You were previously in the room, briefing President Trump on classified information. What we just read there, which The Atlantic published, because the White House, from the CIA Director to the DNI, and everyone else said, it wasn't classified.
Do you believe that information was classified?
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: That is such an easy question. Don't you have a harder one?
Yes, obviously. It is the most--
K. COLLINS: There's no doubt in your mind?
SANNER: No, I think it's -- I think it's hysterical that we're actually having this conversation.
Because if you ask any military person, from the private to the general, is the movement of a plane, a ship, or a $220 million drone, which is the kinds that the Houthis have shot down before, over their territory, is the movement of those into a battle, is that classified? No doubt in anyone's mind, right? This is not about whether someone has classification authority or whatever.
And the requirement is that when you put something on Signal, which is supposed to only be used in an emergency situation, for anything sensitive, you are supposed to cut and paste that and put it into an unclassified email.
Ask an F/A-18 pilot who is on this mission, Do you think that what they wrote in there should be in an unclassified email?
I rest my case.
K. COLLINS: I mean, Jamil, what do you think the answer from that F-18 fighter pilot would be?
JAMIL JAFFER, FORMER COUNSEL TO THE ASSISTANT A.G. FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, FORMER ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER SENIOR COUNSEL TO HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, look, he certainly doesn't want any communications about his movements on an unclassified email, on Signal, anywhere other than the command chain going directly to him. He can execute his mission. After that, it's all open for business, whatever the President wants to do.
That being said, look, at some point in the mission, once the mission is underway, the information may or may not be classified, the President or anybody else decides declassified, including Secretary of Defense. The problem is, the mission wasn't underway yet.
And so the question is, was somebody trying to declassify it? Was that even the discussion? Obviously not. They were clearly trying to keep it sensitive. They were talking about OPSEC on the chain.
So what's clear here is they didn't know a reporter's on the chain. They didn't intend for it to get out. This was designed to be a workaround to not having communication systems that were robust enough to have the communications needed to have, in the heat of the moment.
That's not a great answer. It's obviously hugely problematic. That is where they're going to end up on this. And I'm betting, nobody's getting fired. And I'm betting, Congress is not going to look that deeply at it. This is going to blow over and reach (ph). We'll still be talking about it. But this thing is not going that much further, I don't think.
K. COLLINS: On the firings, the White House would not rule them out today, I should note. And the President sounded a little skeptical of Mike Waltz there, more so than he has at all in the last few days. But obviously, no indication yet.
Chris, you used to work at the Pentagon under President Biden, I should note. But when you see those messages and you hear what the President is now saying after being briefed on them, seeming to backtrack on whether or not -- he didn't offer the defense yesterday, that nothing was classified. What stands out to you?
CHRIS MEAGHER, FORMER PENTAGON SENIOR SPOKESPERSON: I mean, I don't know that we would expect a president who has called men and women wounded in combat, as losers and suckers, and denigrated other people's duty, by--
K. COLLINS: Which he denies, I should note.
MEAGHER: Which he denies. I don't think that we should expect him to be standing up for the war-fighter.
Part of the reason why we keep this information classified is to keep the men and women overseas safe. Pete Hegseth sent a message, exact time, This is when the first bombs will definitely drop, before they even took off. It's just, it's incomprehensible, what these guys were saying and doing, before the mission even began.
[21:10:00]
K. COLLINS: As the former Deputy Director of the FBI, I mean, if Chris, working at the Pentagon, had revealed that information in the time period that Hegseth did, on Signal, on something that was unclassified, I mean, what would be the result of something like that? Wouldn't the FBI launch an investigation into that?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Things like this happen mistakenly, quite frequently, right? It's referred to, in the community, as a spill.
When somebody puts something of a classified nature on an unclassified system, it's typically self-reported, and then the agency involved takes care of that internally. They'll do an investigation, they'll make sure that the information is off the system, and they may take action against the employee. It's employee action, things like that.
When a spill takes place, or information ends up on the wrong system, or outside of the agency's control, and they think there's an intentional act involved, they make a referral to the Department of Justice.
Justice gives it to the FBI to investigate, for two reasons, possible criminal conduct, but more importantly, and more immediately, to make sure there is no threat to national security here. So, that's to get the information back, to analyze the devices involved, to talk to the people involved, to make sure that this wasn't done at the behest of a foreign adversary, or done in a way that a foreign adversary could just take advantage of.
I doubt any of that will happen in this case. We haven't heard any serious talk about a real investigation by the FBI or anyone else. MEAGHER: And we talk about accountability, Kaitlan. The fact that all these guys are out there, saying that this was not classified information is almost even more troubling, that they believe that they can put this TikTok out in an unclassified setting, and think that it's OK.
K. COLLINS: Yes. Well, I mean, when it comes to that, the argument has been, including from President Trump, this afternoon, in the Oval was, Well, the mission was successful--
SANNER: Yes.
K. COLLINS: --and that's what people should be focusing on.
What is your response to that?
SANNER: I think the mission was successful, but that is -- that's just not the point. The point is here -- and I'm not -- I'm not absolutely certain that someone should be fired over this. What I would really love is that there's accountability. Because Secretary Hegseth talks about that. And because we need to make sure that this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure this is a one-off.
And I'm also very, very concerned that this administration is traveling -- you know, you have Witkoff in Moscow, sitting in the anteroom, waiting for Putin, with his phone out probably. I don't know. I'm just making that up. I don't know.
K. COLLINS: And the White House did say today that he had a government-issued device. He wasn't using his personal phone when he was there.
SANNER: That's fine. But just because you are using a government- issued device, unless that's frequently scanned, you don't actually know that your device is secure. You've got to check.
And we don't know. It can happen at any time. You can have that device where the screen is read. You can have a device where it can listen in on you. And as we saw with the mistaken identity of the person involved, you can take a screenshot, and save that, and send that around, and then that's on a part of your phone that's not secure.
So there's a lot that can go wrong here that they really should be not having the arsonists in charge of the investigation of the fire.
K. COLLINS: Well, and the White House has really focused on criticizing Jeffrey Goldberg. I mean, that was what I was going to follow up with today, in the question of, you know, they're saying he's a registered Democrat. They don't like his previous reporting on President Trump, which is driving a huge factor in this.
But Trump himself has questioned why Jeffrey Goldberg's contact was even able to be at it, why Mike Waltz had it.
But to that point of what that looked like, he was privy to this and no one noticed. It's not like they saw it and removed him. He removed himself, and still no one noticed, until he reached out for comment to the White House, on Monday morning.
JAFFER: Yes, look, this whole Jeffrey Goldberg -- attack on Jeffrey Goldberg, whatever you might think of him, whatever you think about his reporting, whether he's a Democrat or not, doesn't really matter, whether he's told a bunch of lies about the President.
This story happened to be true. He was in the chat. He saw the information. There's nothing about this reporting that's not accurate. It's a bogus way to go down this road, and it's a mistake for the administration to go after Jeffrey Goldberg.
What they ought to do is just say, Look, we thought this was the extra way (ph) to run this thing. It wasn't the right plan. We need better comms devices. We're going to work on that. And you know what? We're going to move forward.
The one thing I will say is, I think you're right about President Trump, which is, if he starts feeling like his feet are being held to the fire, or there's a lot of tension in Congress, or in the public, too much on this, he will fire somebody, but not because they actually deserve to be fired, but because he wants the heat off of him.
K. COLLINS: Well, and in terms of an investigation, when he was speaking about Mike Waltz, the question was initially about him being in charge of this investigation.
You just mentioned, typically, how this would go down with the FBI.
The Director, Kash Patel, was actually testifying on Capitol Hill today, and here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. CHRISSY HOULAHAN (D-PA): Do you believe that it's now time, potentially, for the FBI to open an investigation into this?
KASH PATEL, DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: I'm not going to comment on that.
HOULAHAN: Because you're the Director of the FBI, you don't believe it's appropriate to comment on that?
PATEL: Because there's a process in place. There's an ongoing litigation. And the National Security Council is reviewing this matter.
HOULAHAN: That seem--
PATEL: And I'm not going to discuss any open or closed investigations.
[21:15:00]
HOULAHAN: That ongoing investigation literally, the lawsuit happened today or yesterday afternoon, and the idea that you don't have an opinion on this at this point is frustrating to me.
PATEL: No, it's not.
HOULAHAN: My final question. Reclaiming my time.
PATEL: I'm not going to prejudge any matters.
HOULAHAN: My final question. Reclaiming my time.
PATEL: And the men and women of the FBI will--
HOULAHAN: Reclaiming my time.
PATEL: --call the balls and strikes.
HOULAHAN: Reclaiming my time, sir.
PATEL: Not you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCCABE: Well, that didn't go well. And I would not -- I don't know that I would describe this as an ongoing litigation. That's certainly not the case here.
The question -- the way he could have answered that question is to whether or not they had received a referral from the Department of Justice. That's the first thing that has to happen here. And that would not have put him in a position of prejudging the case or indicating whether he thought that wrongdoing had taken place. So that was a bit of an unforced error, I think, on the -- on the Director's part.
Nevertheless, I think it is consistent with what we've seen, has just been an abysmal reaction to this -- to this scandal. The ridiculous denials of the classified nature of this conversation are patently absurd. And it's backed the administration into a really an untenable position where, if they come out and acknowledge the fault, done some very minimal work to figure out exactly what had happened, we'd be -- we'd be moving on from this thing.
K. COLLINS: We'll see what Capitol Hill does. A lot of reaction on Capitol Hill.
My next source tonight was not on that Signal group chat. He's a member of President Trump's Cabinet. We'll speak to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs about that and much more, right after a quick break.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
K. COLLINS: As we've seen the administration's efforts to downplay what has been happening with this Signal group chat, and the developments there, we did hear from several prominent members of the President's party on Capitol Hill, who made clear they have lingering concerns over how the group chat was handled and the aftermath. Members today, including those who are on the Intelligence and Armed Services committees, told CNN that they believe the White House's explanation so far has been insufficient, and they do support an investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JERRY MORAN (R-KS): I can't see any rationale for the kind of conversation that took place over Signal for not taking place in a more secure manner than that.
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): I think that bears an investigation to see when and how it's being used.
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): They thought it was safe, and they had a discussion, and I think they made some mistakes in that regard.
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): Whether it's considered, quote, Classified, or just highly sensitive, it was too detailed in -- whether -- you can call it a war plan or not, it's just too detailed to pretend that wasn't a big deal.
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): I'm worried about everybody and how they have handled this Signal controversy.
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hegseth had all those battle plans he discussed. And does that concern you?
MURKOWSKI: Does it concern me? Hell yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: My next source tonight is in the administration, and is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Doug Collins.
I should note, no relation, Mr. Secretary. Thank you so much for being here.
You served in the Navy, and the Air Force. How would you have felt if information like this was talked about, in an unclassified group chat, if a Navy fighter pilot is in the air?
DOUG COLLINS, VETERANS AFFAIRS SECRETARY: Well, I think the one thing, Kaitlan -- it's good to be with you, tonight. I think the President and those involved in the chat, which I was not involved in the chat, have explained that. I trust the President's opinion on that. I trust what's been going on.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. And my opinion is that my job is to take care of veterans in this country, as they come out of service, and that's what I'm going to continue to do.
K. COLLINS: We heard from some of your former colleagues, up on the Hill today, some Republicans who said they don't like how the administration is handling this, that they're kind of tying themselves in knots by saying it wasn't classified information. Do you believe that a mistake was made here, though, to have this conversation, to add a reporter, and to have it on an unsupported, unclassified group setting?
D. COLLINS: Kaitlan, as I've just told you, I've just answered the question. I wasn't part of it. And I'm not going to speculate more than what the President's already talked about, and those who have been involved have talked about. But would love to talk about the veterans.
K. COLLINS: Yes, and I do have questions about the veterans.
But given what we saw with the group chat, and how this was used. You are a member of the Cabinet. You obviously know these other members, several of them who were in there. Is this typical for the Cabinet to have conversations over Signal? Is this something that you use?
D. COLLINS: Well, Kaitlan, since you undoubtedly do not want to talk about the V.A. I have a question, as V.A. Secretary, as Cabinet, I want to ask you, because I've been curious about this, because my job is to take care of veterans.
And I would like to know why CNN is hostile to veterans, especially one in Florida, where you just had a $5 million defamation suit, taking offense at a veteran who was trying to help people. In fact, one of your employees actually said, We're going to nail him.
I have a question for you, Kaitlan. Is that employee still employed? Are you really concerned about veterans? So, if we don't want to talk about veterans now, and you want to talk about everything else, I'd like to hear from CNN, as the Veteran Cabinet Secretary, why CNN seems to have a problem with veterans?
K. COLLINS: Well, Mr. Secretary, respectfully, my question was about--
D. COLLINS: No, answer my question, Kaitlan.
K. COLLINS: --whether or not you, as a member of the Cabinet use this.
D. COLLINS: Answer my question, Kaitlan.
K. COLLINS: And respectfully, I'm conducting the investigation. And I do have a lot of questions for you, on Veterans Affairs. But I don't think it would be unwarranted to ask--
D. COLLINS: No, Kaitlan, what you want to do is you want to talk about a subject--
K. COLLINS: --if you as a member of the Cabinet--
D. COLLINS: What you want to do is talk about a subject that I have already answered. And if you want to continue this, like this, that's fine. But there are V.A. employees, who are working very hard. There are veterans who get their care from the V.A., and they get their benefits from the V.A. And it does mean no good to speculate on something that I've already asked and answered. So I've asked and answered your question. Why don't you answer mine? Are you still in -- is this person still employed, who said they were going to nail one of my veterans, who you had to do a $5 million award from a jury--
K. COLLINS: Sir--
D. COLLINS: --because of defamation, and then you settled the case? Answer my question.
[21:25:00]
K. COLLINS: Respectfully, sir, I'm asking the questions here, and I have no involvement in what you're referencing there.
D. COLLINS: No, I am--
K. COLLINS: But if you don't want to answer the question about whether or not it's commonplace--
D. COLLINS: I am not--
K. COLLINS: --for secretaries in the Cabinet to use Signal.
You are running the Veterans Affairs. And we do have a lot of questions about that, because there's been big things happening. You and I were just talking about this, before this interview started.
D. COLLINS: Yes.
K. COLLINS: And I told you I'd get to these questions about Veterans Affairs.
You don't want to answer that one.
We'll talk about what you -- the V.A. did announce that they were suspending $2 billion in planned contracts. That is a number that was quickly changed, and there were 300 contracts that had initially been labeled as wasteful that were removed from that list of cuts. Secretary Collins, Why were those contracts removed from that?
D. COLLINS: Well, number one, you were dealing with a leaked document that was pre-decisional and not had been made in the actual end-of- the-day amount. We had over $1.8 billion, it was part of that, actually $500 million, there were roughly real-time cuts.
The -- yes, articles that went out, and what I've been fighting for the last six weeks, while I've been on the job is innuendo, and rumor, and leaking, designed, really, to scare veterans and scare veteran employees.
So, we're continuing our cuts. The number really didn't change. The problem was, is the press decided to run with leaked documents that were pre-decisional. And so you get a bad result when you don't wait to actually see what the end result is going to be. K. COLLINS: Well, I'm a little confused about the process, because it was on February 26th that the V.A. announced the plans to save $2 billion. And then, on March 3rd, it was the department that announced revised plans. So isn't it the Department of Veterans Affairs who announced that initially?
D. COLLINS: No, I think what we have to understand is there's about $1.8 billion, almost $2 billion in cuts that were found. Some have already been spent, the rest going to go for -- not go forward. Others in about the months that we've had already, they're saving in this year.
So really, the numbers are not changed. Again, it goes back to a pre- decisional issue, in which others pointed (ph), this has already been made, and those decisions have -- were still in the process of being made.
K. COLLINS: OK, but it was the Veterans Affairs department that announced that initially, right?
D. COLLINS: Exactly -- I mean, and I've just answered that, Kaitlan. I'm not sure how I can help you anymore on that. The decisions were made, and still in process. When the decisions were made, that we actually did, and it was about $1.8 billion. The actual numbers, and where they found it out, which contracts, were still in the decisional process.
K. COLLINS: OK, just asking, because it was put out there and then changed. And so we're curious about why.
D. COLLINS: I appreciate that.
K. COLLINS: With the Department of Veterans Affairs, overall, it's been planning to cut about 80,000 jobs. You've talked about this. We've seen some Republicans, including Lindsey Graham, up on Capitol Hill, say they believe Congress should have been consulted about that before they read about it.
Is that something that you'll consult Congress on, where you're making those cuts, and what that's going to look like?
D. COLLINS: Yes, Kaitlan, that's a great question. Thank you for that. Because we've had a lot of discussion about that.
And remember, when Donald Trump was elected, it was generational change on D.C., as far as scope and size of government. And this is a government-wide reduction in force that we're looking at. And each goal -- each place had a goal to shoot for. That was a -- say, can you get there? And it's a goal. That's exactly what it is. 15 percent, you get the 80,000 number.
We're going through a process right now, working with our career employees, working with our politicos, and working with the Hill. We've been briefing the Hill, as we go forward. In fact, I'll actually be with the Senate pretty soon, and we're going to do that in a whole group setting. We've been doing it with individual members in the House as well. On ideas that we have.
Now, if we get to that number, that will be something that we take into account, that will actually improve our service to our veterans, on our health care side, and our benefit side.
We've increased, just the previous administration, through tens of billions of dollars at this department, and tens of thousands of employees. And Kaitlan, what was really concerning to me was our metrics never improved. In fact, for the most part, they didn't improve at all. And our benefit -- and our disability claims actually skyrocketed, our backlogs skyrocketed. So money and people are not the issue.
So, what we're looking at here is, are we spending the money properly, and are we having the right amount of employees? Or do we have just too much bureaucracy? And I think that's the big key that we're looking at right now.
K. COLLINS: Is Elon Musk playing a role, or how much of a role is he playing, and deciding what those cuts will look like?
D. COLLINS: Elon Musk hasn't been at the V.A. We've got V.A. employees who are DOGE liaisons, and they've been helping us look through contracts, and look through organizational structure.
I have to share it just with you, interestingly enough, for veterans out there who -- you know, look, the V.A. has been the whipping post for a long time. Everybody likes to complain about the V.A. But when you try and fix it, then everybody says, Oh, you can't. You got to slow down. Well, I'm not accepting that, because that means that we accept the status quo that's not helping veterans.
And so, we're looking at this aspect that when I first got here, we have over 470,000, 460,000 employees. And the reason I say it that way is, is when I asked my human resources person to, Let's see how many employees we have and where they are, we didn't have a human resource system that could actually give me those numbers.
So, we're fighting to make sure that we're giving the American people what they have deserved, and that's a V.A. that is responsive to a veteran, and give the tools to do that with. And we'll accept that help in any way possible, because our folks are working very hard to make it happen.
K. COLLINS: Yes, I heard you mention that about HR, the other day.
[21:30:00]
But when it comes to Musk himself, obviously he's been involved in the Cabinet meetings. I know you had another one this week. And in the one previously, it was reported that you had said to him that it needed to be done, skillfully and strategically, in terms of how those cuts were being made.
But ultimately, at the end of the day, are you the one who makes those decisions, on what those cuts look like? D. COLLINS: Oh, that's sure (ph). I raised my hand to be the Secretary of V.A. I make the decisions on what's going to happen here, and that's what the President asked me to do, and that's what the President reinforced in our meetings, that the secretaries of these cabinets and directors are the ones who have the ultimate decision, to do what's best for their departments.
Elon Musk is a great partner to help us with technology and other things, to give fresh looks. I think everybody has a fresh look, is one point, to make sure you're still doing what your mission is supposed to be. And for us, it's about the veteran.
My day one focus has been saying the V.A. is not about the V.A. organization. It's about the veterans we serve. We're not an employment agency. We're a service organization, and we're going to use that any way. But at the end of the day, the buck stops with me, and I answer to the President, and to the American people, and to the veterans that we're supposed to serve.
K. COLLINS: Secretary Doug Collins, thank you for your time.
D. COLLINS: Thank you. Take care.
K. COLLINS: Up next. A key Senate Democrat is here to respond to the latest batch of messages released, after clashing with Trump officials on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): This sloppiness, this incompetence, this disrespect for our intelligence agencies, and the personnel who work for them, is entirely unacceptable. It's an embarrassment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
K. COLLINS: The release of the entire Signal group chat about strikes against Yemen has members of Congress taking a second look at this testimony from yesterday, before the full messages were released, from the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the CIA.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN RATCLIFFE, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: And I was not discussing classified information in this -- in this setting.
TULSI GABBARD, UNITED STATES DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: There was no classified material that was shared.
RATCLIFFE: There was no classified information.
GABBARD: There was no classified information.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: DNI Director Gabbard was asked during today's hearing, when she was back on Capitol Hill, is not supposed to be related to what has happened here, but obviously, a lot of the questions are about the developments over the last few days. She was asked specifically today about her department's classification guidance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): This is the ODNI guidance, information providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack should be classified as top secret. Do you disagree with that?
GABBARD: I don't disagree with that. I just point out that the DOD classification guidance is separate from the ODNI's classification guidance. And ultimately--
HIMES: Do you think it would be materially different?
GABBARD: Ultimately, the Secretary of Defense holds the authority to classify or declassify.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: My next source is the Senator who questioned, both Director Ratcliffe and Gabbard, before the full messages were released. Colorado Democrat, Senator Michael Bennet.
And thank you, Senator, for being here.
BENNET: Thank you, Kaitlan.
K. COLLINS: Now that you can read the full messages, because The Atlantic published them today, after everyone and their mom (ph) was saying they weren't classified, in the administration. How does that line up with what you heard from the testimony yesterday?
BENNET: The testimony yesterday was false. They said there was no classified information.
I've been hearing this hair-splitting all day long. I'm on the Intelligence Committee, as you know. If this stuff is classified, I don't -- isn't classified, I don't know what is classified.
I mean, I hate to say it, the Intelligence Committee is, you know, some people think that would be a really cool place to work, and to be a committee member. We rarely hear anything as secret as the stuff that these guys were talking about, as classified as what they were talking about. And it is -- it is -- and I know every single one of them understands that about this too, which is what makes it so agonizing.
K. COLLINS: So you believe they lied?
BENNET: I think they're just lying, yes. And they think, in a time of the Big Lie, they believe that if they
attack the reporter who surfaced it, who wasn't, you know, whose fault -- I mean, Jeff Goldberg had nothing to do with the fact that somebody brought him on to the Signal thread that he was on. Then they attack him, they attack the press, and they claim, you know, they hair-split all day about whether it was classified or not.
I can assure you, everybody in Colorado would be shocked after reading that, not to think that these war plans should be classified.
K. COLLINS: And so what happens now--
BENNET: Well--
K. COLLINS: --if that is the situation? If you believe that they were lying to you, given those are two members who were on this, this message thread, and talking about what they did not recall in it, and then obviously everything was published today. What is the next step there?
BENNET: I think you know what's going to happen. They're just going to stonewall and stonewall and stonewall. That's how Donald Trump approaches questions like this. And it's going to be up to the media to do the muckraking that's required. It's going to be up to Congress to provide the oversight that's required.
[21:40:00]
There isn't -- it would be shocking to me if Donald Trump held any of these people accountable for their failures. And their failures are substantial. Their failures are significant for the men and women in our Armed Forces, for the men and women in our intelligence agencies, our allies across the globe, who already are having a hard enough time deciding whether or not to trust us. And now we have a circumstance like this.
And when they're found out, through their own stupidity, and idiocy? Instead of just owning up to it, and saying it was a mistake, they've doubled down and said, There's nothing to see here.
K. COLLINS: What do you make of how your Republican colleagues are handling this? We did hear from Roger Wicker today, the first member of his party, saying that he would like to see an investigation here. Do you think that they have the same concerns that you do?
BENNET: I do, and I think you're beginning to hear them say that publicly.
K. COLLINS: And so, what does that look like? If -- what would you like to see Roger Wicker and others, Tom Cotton, who is the Chair of your committee, what steps would they take?
BENNET: Right. I'd love to see -- I'd love to see the Intelligence Committee. Tom Cotton has been doing a very good job, as the Chairman of that committee. We don't agree on a lot of things. But I'd love to see our committee provide oversight here, the Armed Services Committee as well. I mean, it would be much better for us to have a bipartisan approach, if we can.
K. COLLINS: Your colleague, Mark Kelly, said he believes that Secretary Hegseth should be fired.
BENNET: I think he should be fired. I absolutely think he should be fired.
K. COLLINS: Secretary Hegseth, or Michael Waltz, who added the reporter to the chats?
BENNET: Well I -- I mean, Secretary Hegseth, for sure, who clearly is the source of the -- of the classified or the -- the targeting information that he put in this chat, and who, by the way, seems to think he did nothing wrong. He's also out there bashing the press, rather than taking responsibility for the carelessness -- carelessness with which he's treated the most important secrets that America has.
This is not a close call. It's ridiculous what these folks are trying to claim, as you know, not being confidential, not being classified, not being secret. Even if it were true, the judgment that would be required, to have a reporter join, to then put information like this out on an unclassified?
K. COLLINS: But can I ask you because--
BENNET: It's just ridiculous.
K. COLLINS: --the pushback to calls for firings that I've heard from the White House, and from Republicans is, well, when the Afghanistan pullout happened, and obviously service members lost their lives during the pullout from that airport, they said, No one in the Biden administration was fired, not the National Security Advisor, not the Defense Secretary.
What would you say to that?
BENNET: What I would say is that all these cases need to be looked at. We need to hold people accountable, for their failures in leadership, no matter what administration is. This is an intentional failure of treating confidential information like--
K. COLLINS: What did you make it for the V.A. Secretary said there. I mean, he's a veteran himself, which is why I was -- I was genuinely curious what he would think a fighter pilot would see in this situation, of that information being relayed.
BENNET: Well, I think--
K. COLLINS: I mean, he tried to turn it into a question about CNN and not answer, essentially.
BENNET: And he's turning it -- he's turning that into the big lie as well. And this is the world we live in right now. And it matters where people draw these lines. It matters whether we are able to uphold the expectations that we have for our own intelligence officers, and the requirements they have to safeguard the country's secrets. And when they see something like this, it creates huge concern.
I will also tell you on the V.A. Secretary, there are deep concerns in Colorado about the way the administration is approaching these cuts on federal employees. Most of the people in my state, I think, would say that all government should be reformed. They actually want to see government reform.
But the way Elon Musk is approaching it, the across-the-board cuts that the administration is pursuing, not just at the V.A., but at the Forest Service and other things, I think, is creating even more profound mistrust. And when you look at what they've done with the Intel stuff for the last few days, that's a really toxic combination.
K. COLLINS: Yes. He said Elon Musk hasn't been at the Veterans Affairs Department, which I thought was interesting.
Senator Michael Bennet, great to have you as always.
BENNET: Thanks for having me, Kaitlan.
K. COLLINS: Thanks for joining us tonight.
BENNET: Thank you.
K. COLLINS: Very busy day, I know, on Capitol Hill.
Up next. With a stroke of his Sharpie pen today, we saw the President open a new front in his global trade war. He said it's a move that could drive up -- all right some -- being described as a move that could drive up the price of the cars. We'll tell you what the President said about it, right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
K. COLLINS: Buyer beware. Your next car could cost more money.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This is very modest. And what we're going to be doing is a 25 percent tariff on all cars that are not made in the United States. If they're made in the United States, there's absolutely no tariff.
Business is coming back to the United States, so that they don't have to pay tariffs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: A very modest 25 percent tariff, the President says.
My political sources are here, Paul Begala and Scott Jennings.
Along with my deeply-sourced White House insiders, Zolan Kanno-Youngs from The New York Times, and Isaac Arnsdorf from The Washington Post. And Isaac, this was something the White House announced later this afternoon. They said, the President's going to be making an announcement on auto tariffs. This is a 25 percent tariff on all imports coming into the U.S., and he said it starts April 2. Obviously, he was arguing that that will be, in the end, better for the American consumer.
But what have you heard from sources about how this all came about today?
ISAAC ARNSDORF, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, obviously, Trump was elected to lower prices, not raise them. And he is betting that the long run, that Americans are going to stick with him, in the long run for the -- but factories aren't built overnight. And he's acknowledged that there's going to be pain in the meantime.
[21:50:00]
And I've been assured by the White House that we're not going to see a repeat on April 2, of what happened a month ago, where the markets panicked, the other countries scrambled, and they agreed, Well, we have some concessions. Let's work it out. Let's pause it. Let's delay it a month.
Is this going to be happening every month? Are we going to have that whiplash scare every month that then gets dialed back? I've been assured this time, April 2 is real.
K. COLLINS: Well, what happens if April 2 is real? Because I think that's what all of these, the carmakers, the automakers, everyone else is going to be affected by these tariffs, who's been looking at saying, Do we need to actually prep for this? Or is it going to be an exception, a pullback, whatever we've seen before, previously?
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Which we've seen in the past, right, and particularly when it came to tariffs on Mexico as well, and when it came to Canada, I remember that.
And when he threatened tariffs initially, on Mexico, I traveled there, talked to officials who were asking those same questions. Is this for real? Which is often the question that comes up. Is this just politically advantageous to issue the rhetorical threat of this economic penalty, or to actually go through with it?
You mentioned that he acknowledged also the pain that consumers might feel. I think it's more than just he's betting that Americans will be patient here with any sort of economic frustration. That acknowledgement is also part of a resetting of expectations, in a way.
We have to remember that during the transition that Trump said he would bring down consumer prices immediately, and address inflation immediately. Here, you start to see, just in recent weeks, the President and other officials saying, Hey, look, now that we're in office, these tariffs, it may come with some economic pain, particularly if they do go through with it on April 2.
K. COLLINS: Scott, how does the President balance that in terms of he -- you can only -- if you're negotiating and using it as a tactic, you can't really back away from it that often. Or people will just always think, Maybe it's not actually going to happen. But how do you balance that with what consumers might feel as a result of this?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL: Well, you balance it by making your argument that, I'm trying to transform the American economy. And while we may have some short-term pain for consumers, we're going to have long-term gain for workers.
And if you look on your social media tonight, the United Auto Workers, the UAW, has put out a strong statement, in support of what Trump did today. And one of the reasons that Trump said he was doing the tariff is because of declining domestic production. And so, in the eyes of Trump, in the eyes of the UAW, the people who represent the people that work in these factories, this is a win for them.
So, the balance here is short-term pain for consumers, maybe. Long- term game for workers. And by the way, if everybody wants to make their stuff here, nobody's going to feel any pain at all.
PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: This is going to go down in history like, you know how, like Reagan had Morning in America, and FDR had the New Deal, and LBJ, the Great Society. This presidency will be known as the Great Betrayal.
He was elected by the American middle-class. He won the votes of voters who make less than 50 grand a year. Just as Isaac said, they voted for him for one reason, Cut my cost of living.
Since he's taken office -- he took office, eggs were $4.14 a carton. They're $5.89 today. Gas was $2.95 a gallon. They're $3.11 today. This is all from the Federal Reserve.
JENNINGS: I think you're off on the eggs.
BEGALA: It's a 100 percent from the Federal Reserve.
JENNINGS: I think you're off on the eggs.
BEGALA: I'm just telling you what the Fed says. Rent has gone up $1 a day every day since he was sworn-in. If he's not cutting the price of groceries, gas and rent, he is failing the people who put him in office. He's stabbing him in the back. These are good people. I hate when my side attacks Trump voters. They're good people. But they put their faith in a guy who's stabbing them in the back every day. You can't have higher tariffs and lower prices.
JENNINGS: Was he not also elected by the working men and women of this country to give them better job opportunities in the middle of this country? I mean, part of the whole animus of the Trump campaign in 2016 was the hollowing out of the American manufacturing sector.
BEGALA: Sure. So go tell them--
JENNINGS: And that's what he's doing.
BEGALA: Go tell them that adding $12,000 to the cost of their car is going to be really good for them, Scott.
JENNINGS: I'm going to -- I'm going to go tell -- I'm going to go -- I'm going to go--
BEGALA: I wish you luck with that, buddy.
JENNINGS: I'm going to go -- I'm going to go and tell them they're going to get a job, make more money than they've ever made. That's what you said.
BEGALA: Yes, they're going to tell you you're full of malarkey.
K. COLLINS: You know--
BEGALA: You're raising costs across the board. If you drive, or drink, or eat, or dress, you're going to be paying more.
JENNINGS: Inflation rates have come down in the last couple of months.
BEGALA: No, they have not.
K. COLLINS: But I do think part of this is who's around Trump, and his economic advisers, in terms of how they're guiding him on this, compared to last time. It does seem different, in terms of no one's saying, Oh, you should pull back on this, or, You should do this. They're more -- much more on board with it than they were eight years ago.
KANNO-YOUNGS: I think that's across the board when it comes to the Trump agenda, that you're not going to have the -- you're not going to have the instances that we saw in the first term, where different Cabinet officials are pushing back on some of these ideas.
Also, tariffs were at the center, and he made it clear, during the campaign, of not only his economic agenda, but also his foreign policy agenda as well, when it came to these nations. I don't think you're going to convince the President to walk back something like that he has made a central part of his agenda, at this point.
ARNSDORF: And this is what business leaders are struggling with right now. Who can get through to him, to make their case about how this is affecting them and consumers by extension. How do they reach him?
I'm thinking about the business roundtable meeting a few weeks ago, which some people were imagining as like a big Come-to-Jesus, and it ended up just being at Trump rally.
K. COLLINS: We'll see what happens there, of course. April 2, everyone has their eyes on that date.
Thank you all for being here. Up next. We have new details tonight, something we've been following very closely for the last day or so. The Army tonight says the four soldiers went missing during a training mission. What they're saying about that tonight, ahead.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
K. COLLINS: Tonight, a desperate search is underway in Lithuania, for four U.S. Army soldiers. They were reported missing yesterday while training near the Lithuania's eastern border with Belarus. Officials say that the armored vehicle that the soldiers were operating was found submerged in water, and its search efforts for the soldiers are still ongoing tonight.
We heard from Lithuania's Defense Minister, who posted this update earlier, saying, quote, "Everybody remains on standby, ready to provide emergency medical support" amid this search.
Right now, officials have yet to reveal the identities of these four missing soldiers.
I should note, the U.S. has maintained a military presence in Eastern Europe, in the Baltic region, since 2014, as part of an operation called the Atlantic Resolve. It was a response to Russia's invasion, in 2014, of Crimea.
[22:00:00]
Obviously, we are worried for these people. We are keeping in touch with the authorities on this, and keeping their families in our minds. And we'll keep you updated on the search efforts.
Thank you all so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" is up next.
