Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

NTSB: Fire Truck In LaGuardia Crash Did Not Have Transponder; Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA) Is interviewed About Talks To Fund DHS Ramp Up As Airport Lines Grow More Unpredictable; Trump Alludes To A Goodwill Gesture From The Iranians; Sec. Rubio Testifies In Trial Of Former Congressman Accused Of Secretly Lobbying For Venezuela; Gov. Moore: Trump's Ice Deployments Part Of "Larger Plan"; Jury Finds Meta Liable In Child Sexual Exploitation Case. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired March 24, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Really appreciate you guys being here. Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. Don't forget you can now stream The Arena live. You can catch up whenever you want in CNN app.

Just scan that QR code below. You can also catch up by listening to The Arenas podcast. You can follow us on X and Instagram at thearenacnn. But don't go anywhere. Phil Mattingly is in for Jake Tapper and he is standing by for "The Lead."

Hi, Phil.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Kasie. Thanks so much. We'll look for more tomorrow in "The Arena."

HUNT: See you soon.

[17:00:28]

MATTINGLY: That fire truck that collided with a plane at LaGuardia was not equipped with critical warning systems. The Lead starts right now.

The NTSB revealing brand new details about the fire truck that crashed with an Air Canada flight coming in for landing revealing technology problems that may have contributed to the tragedy. Our aviation experts are standing by with their analysis. Plus the puzzling gift that President Trump says he got from Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It was a very big present worth. A tremendous amount of money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: What hint he gave about this gift and more importantly what it means for his very ongoing war with Iran. And from airports to election sites are ICE agents currently in a test run for the upcoming midterm elections.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper. We start with breaking news out of New York's LaGuardia Airport and those new details from the National Transportation Safety Board about Sunday's crash between an Air Canada plane and a fire truck. The NTSB says the fire truck and several other vehicles behind it did not have a transponder on them. This means that critical missing piece of technology likely limited air traffic control towers ability to track the fire truck and other vehicles on the runway. Also the airport's ground radar system, the surface detection equipment or ASDE-X did not issue an alert warning the Runway was unsafe to enter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNIFER HOMENDY, CHAIRWOMAN, NTSB: ASDE-X did not generate an alert due to the close proximity of vehicles merging and unmerging near the runway resulting in the inability to create a track of high confidence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: The NTSB also raising a number of questions including what specific duties the two people in the control tower were doing at the time of the crash.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOMENDY: It is not clear who was doing the -- who was conducting the duties of the ground controller. We have conflicting information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Now when asked by CNN's Pete Muntean about air traffic controllers and the information they should have, Homendy said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOMENDY: Controllers should have all the information and the tools to do their job. This is 2026. You know the secretary talks about upgrading our air traffic control system. We have an old air traffic control system. This is why he talks about that.

We need to upgrade, but we also need to improve safety.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Let's bring in the aforementioned pilot and CNN aviation correspondent, Pete Muntean, as well as former senior NTSB investigator Greg Feith.

Pete, I want to start with you. That sound we just played at the NTSB chairwoman, she's responding to one of your questions. Tell us more about the exchange.

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: The premise that I had here, Phil, is why is it that only two controllers were working in the air traffic control tower here at LaGuardia at the time of the crash when the airport was so busy. It's important to remember that LaGuardia is one of the busiest airports in the country, which is one of the most dynamic. The FAA rates the scale of complexity of air traffic control facilities on a scale from one to 12. LaGuardia is an 11. It also determines controller pay, but only two controllers in the tower cab at the time.

I asked whether or not that is safe because that is something that the NTSB has underscored as a problem incidents previously, including the recent fatal midair collision involving a commercial flight and an army helicopter just outside of Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C. I want you to listen to her response about whether or not it's safe to have two controllers essentially working combined roles. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOMENDY: In this situation for the midnight shift, it is standard operating procedure that they only have two on duty and those two perform the duties of other controllers. That is our understanding right now. However, we're going to further dig into that as part of our investigation. Certainly I can tell you that our air traffic control team has stated this is a problem, that this is a concern for them for years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MUNTEAN: By the way, Phil, this is the most significant release of information since this crash on Sunday night. The NTSB has essentially laid out a detailed timeline from the cockpit voice recorder onboard that Air Canada regional jet behind me. There has been so much activity there and more activity now. It seems that flatbed trailers have arrived.

[17:05:15]

The runway here, runway four, the site of this crash and Taxiway Echo behind me, Taxiway Delta, is where the truck was crossing, that fire truck was crossing, all of that area remains closed. And the NTSB says there is a huge debris field for investigators to sift through. This runway not planned to reopen until Friday at the earliest.

MATTINGLY: Greg, I want to stick for a second with Pete's great question and I think a very impassioned response that you could kind of read between the lines from Chairman Homendy. Should there be more than two controllers during the midnight shift there?

GREG FEITH, FORMER SENIOR NTSB INVESTIGATOR: Absolutely. When you look at, like Pete said, the number of aircraft arrivals and departures, just all the activity, when you have these larger airports that have a lot of movement, they should have more. I mean, it's one thing to go into Aspen at late at night when you only have maybe two, three or four arrivals.

That's a whole lot different than having the saturation of traffic, especially if the weather goes down, because you do have aircraft that are delayed. You have them delayed both inbound and outbound. And so you need another set of eyes up there because again, to have that combined position like the board identified a year and a half ago in Washington, you need another set of eyes.

Let one controller handle all of the ground, let controller handle all a local, and you have the backup being in the controller in charge if you need additional assistance.

MATTINGLY: Greg, there's another issue that really stuck out to me, you know, as Pete was noting. The first kind of substantive and significant release of information that we've gotten up to this point and still very early stage investigation. The NTSB saying the air traffic control tower cleared the fire truck to cross the runway one second before an electronic call out indicated the plane was 100 feet above the ground. Would it even be possible for the pilots to see the fire truck at that point? Or was that not possible at all because none of the vehicles on the runway had transponders period?

FEITH: Well, that's two different things from a visual perspective, you have all of the flashing lights but just about every vehicle that operates on the airport visual cue to it. Now, the fire trucks being larger and having a different set or a different color light that may have drawn the -- at least the visual acuity of the pilots.

So they would have been able to see flashing lights whether or not they were able to discern that they were emergency response vehicles versus just a catering truck waiting to cross a runway is a whole different situation that the board's going to have to ferret out.

Now, with regard to the transponder, that's an electronic signal. That's the electronic witness. And that's a detriment because those fire vehicles should have had a transponder. That's why the ASDE-X did not issue an alert. ASDE-X would have given them at least a 15 to 20 second warning both visually and orally.

So there would have been an oral alert and a visual alert had the fire truck been equipped with a transponder to tell the controller, hey, you have a potential conflict. Figure out what the proper corrective action is.

MATTINGLY: Pete, I have about 100 questions right now, but you know the space better than anybody. As we stand right now after what we've seen play out today, what's sticking in your head? What are you reporting on? What do you want answers to that you think is most important?

MUNTEAN: The big thing is why this fire truck did not stop at the intersection of the taxiway and the runway. And maybe the only silver lining here is that NTSB investigators will be able to speak to those firefighters who were in that Oshkosh Stryker fire truck as across Taxiway Delta about halfway down the 7,000 foot long runway. That will be very revealing. Did they see this collision in the making?

The other big thing here is that there is only a recommendation by the FAA. They only encourage ground vehicles at major airports such as LaGuardia and across the country to have transponders. It is not a requirement. Will there be a discussion at the federal level to maybe change that to a requirement? We know that it often takes an act of Congress. They, in many ways, function as a board of directors for the Federal Aviation Administration. Will they go one step further and require major changes as the result of this accident? Only two people died. And that's very tragic. It's a very technical incident, but it could have been a lot worse, Phil.

MATTINGLY: It's such a great point. Invaluable perspective from both of you. As always, Pete Muntean, Greg Feith, thanks so much.

[17:10:04]

FEITH: Yes.

MATTINGLY: Well, we're tracking the movement here in D.C. that could end this. What you're watching on the screen, the miserable wait for thousands trying to get through airport security lines. This hour, what top Republicans are saying and the response from Democrats. And later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, his testimony today in the criminal trial for his former Florida roommate. We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: Our politics lead, Senate Majority Leader John Thune says Republicans are ready to reopen the Department of Homeland Security if Democrats are willing to back a new GOP plan and a fix, well, it cannot come soon enough, TSA workers just days away from missing their second full paycheck. At least 450 agents have already quit. Today, Houston has the worst of the security -- airport security lines. Travelers have been warned they could be waiting for more than four hours.

Let's bring in Congressman Kevin Kiley of California. Just last week, he switched his party affiliation from Republican to Independent, which I'm going to get you in a moment. But Congressman, I want to start with, frankly, I don't even know what to call it or where it stands at the moment. But I know Senate Republicans have -- some of them, at least on the leadership side, have coalesced around a proposal. Democrats it seemed like a proposal that they'd been pushing for up to this point.

[17:15:06]

Now they're saying they're not sure if they want to get behind the proposal. Conservatives in your former conference don't like the proposal. What's going to happen here?

REP. KEVIN KILEY (I-CA): Well, what needs to happen is we need to get a deal done. And you know, what we're seeing right now with the wait lines, with tens of thousands of TSA agents going without paychecks, coastguard, FEMA not being funded, it is a monument to congressional dysfunction. And this, by the way, coming on the heels of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. So ideally, we get a full bill to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. I think that the ICE issue should be an issue where we can reach some compromise. For example, I voted recently to say we should require judicial warrants for entering homes. We should not have immigration operations around childcare centers and schools. Well, I also voted to say that when you have someone who's committed a crime is in custody and is wanted by the immigration authorities, there shouldn't be an orderly handoff. That's the kind of deal I think we should be able to reach. But if we can't get a deal on the ICE issue, that's no reason to continue to have our TSA agents and our other public servants going without paychecks and our entire transportation system and frankly, our national security being compromised.

MATTINGLY: Yes. I think it's got to the point where this has grown so absurd when you talk to the actual impact it's having on people, both those waiting lines, but probably more importantly, you know, TSA agents, government workers who are not getting paid and still expected to do their job. Been trying to figure out what triggers or incentives could possibly align and saw that Delta temporarily suspended specialty services for members of Congress. Is that something that maybe could peripherally trigger some of your colleagues to try and find a solution here?

KILEY: I mean, it couldn't. It couldn't hurt. You know, I've also been in favor of saying that members of Congress shouldn't get paid when you have a government shutdown going on and you have, you know, millions of people potentially who aren't getting paid because Congress is failing to do its job. But it's just gotten to the point of absurdity, of tragic absurdity. I mean, look at the situation at LaGuardia.

The NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, they had trouble getting their own officers, their own officials to LaGuardia because of the wait times with TSA. So we just need to have a sense of urgency here to get this over with, to be able to move on, to get our airports operating as they should, and to have the protection for our homeland that the American people are entitled to.

MATTINGLY: I want to talk about the switch to Independent. This -- you have always been a moderate member. You were a member who votes against Republicans. Not a ton, but more than most Republicans vote against Republicans in your conference. You were formally removed from your committees last week, which I think is kind of part of the process that plays out here.

I'm interested, was this a decision made purely because of the map changes in California, or is there an ideological shift here? KILEY: Well, it was a decision that reflects my frustration with the

hyper partisanship that we have in Washington, D.C. and that has sort of permeated the country in this just very deep political division that we have. I think that all Americans would agree that political division is a huge problem for this country.

And so I've only been here for three years, but I've seen it get worse and worse and worst. The longest government shutdown in U.S. history, the failure to extend these expiring health care subsidies, so people paying hundreds, thousands of dollars more as a result. And perhaps most clearly seeing this in the gerrymandering war, the redistricting war that's broken out across the country, which I've opposed in Texas, I've opposed Indiana, and I've opposed in my own state of California.

And what's particularly pernicious about that is that gerrymandering seeks to elevate partisanship above everything else, make it the sum and substance of our politics. And so my response is to say, well, maybe the antidote to that is to take partisanship out of the equation, just like it is for local offices, for school board, for city council, for mayor, for DA, for sheriff. These are nonpartisan offices where people just focus on solving problems. I think we could use more of that approach in Congress as well.

MATTINGLY: Just real quick, before I let you go, now that you're an Independent, untethered to all party structures, who's to blame for the shutdown? Democrats or Republicans?

KILEY: Well, you know, I think, frankly, the problem is that is always the question that we spend way too much time answering, is trying to say the other side is responsible for the cost of living going, the other side is responsible for the shutdown, as opposed to the two sides actually coming together to try to solve the problem.

So I think that what is mostly to blame is that structural partisan, that hyper partisanship that has come to define our politics. And I think if we can figure out a way to break through that, then we won't have to worry about government shutdowns anymore.

MATTINGLY: Yes. Funding the government should be the bare minimum.

KILEY: Should be basic. Right.

MATTINGLY: Should be fairly basic. Independent, Congressman Kevin Kiley of California, appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.

KILEY: You bet.

[17:19:38

MATTINGLY: Well, up ahead, what President Trump was willing to reveal today about an apparent present to the U.S. from Iran and what in the world that has to do with the war. We're going to try and make some sense of it. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: Turning now to the world lead in the Iran war, U.S. Central Command this afternoon updated the number of U.S. casualties so far. Approximately 290 U.S. service members have been injured, up from 200 a week ago. Of that number, 255 have returned to duty and 10 remain seriously wounded. The U.S. death toll remains at 13. But at the White House this afternoon, President Trump confirmed the U.S. is in talks with Iran, telling reporters, quote, "we're actually talking to the right people and they want to make a deal so badly."

Then he added some intriguing new details.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: They did something yesterday that was amazing actually. They gave us a present and the present arrived today. It was a very big present, worth a tremendous amount of money. And I'm not going to tell you what that present is, but it was a very significant prize and they gave it to us. And they said they were going to give it.

[17:25:11]

So that meant one thing to me, we're dealing with the right people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that nuclear related?

TRUMP: No, it wasn't nuclear related. It was oil and gas related.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Let's bring in CNN National Security Analyst Alex Plitsas. He's the director of the Atlanta Council's Counterterrorism Program.

And Alex, I've been trying to refrain all day from making jokes about based on these sanctions relief the U.S. gave Iran a few days ago, this is just a justified return of the favor on some level if it's oil and gas. We don't know what the president was specifically referring to. But I think my big question is if that is, as the president refers to it, kind of a show of good faith that he's talking to the right people or the U.S. is talking to the right people, who do we think he's talking to and how real do you think this is right now?

ALEX PLITSAS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So, I mean, by all accounts, it's very real. And speaking to administration sources as well as the Israelis and folks in the region, there has been genuine outreach. You know, Ghalibaf, who is the speaker of the Parliament, has been one that has been targeted for engagement with the U.S. because they think that there's a possibility to work with him. He's not exactly the supreme leader that's Mojtaba Khamenei, the late supreme leader's son, but the U.S. has determined that he may be somebody to work with. So there has been genuine outreach.

There's been an exchange of 15 points in the U.S. and some frank responses from the Iranians. But at least at this point, it looks like there's potential for dialogue and then movement towards a potential deal. We're still very far away from that, but the U.S. and the Iranians are definitely engaged with potential for talks coming in the next few days.

MATTINGLY: What signals would you look for as this progresses, that they're actually making progress, that they're moving forward? Obviously, we're all waiting for the potential meeting that has been talked about potentially in Pakistan. Turkey has been named as well. Trying to understand if it's a Witkoff, Kushner, perhaps Vice President Vance type of thing, who the Iranians would send their foreign minister, maybe Ghalibaf or somebody else, what would be the signal that, OK, this is definitely moving forward?

PLITSAS: So I think obviously if the meeting is announced and it's scheduled and I think Pakistan or Turkey are the most likely in speaking to the Gulf States that normally do mediation, whether it's Qatar, Oman, et cetera. You know, there had been outreach from Iran is my understanding, to mediate.

And the response from a lot of the Gulf states was that until they stopped attacking the Gulf States collectively, that they were not going to engage in mediation efforts. And the Iranians had rejected that. So Pakistan and Turkey stepped into the void there, attempting to use their relationships respectively with Iran and the United States to bring this together.

And to the second part of your question about you know, who to engage with. You know, Ali Larijani had tried multiple times to meet with and get ahold of Vice President Vance. I think the Iranians saw him as somebody they could potentially work with just given his opposition to, you know, potential military action unless it was absolutely necessary. And then, you know, not having had success twice now with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff that they may want to bring new actors into the mix that they think may work. So there's been a request to do that.

So I believe we'll see potentially Marco Rubio and the Vice President, J.D. Vance and then on the Iranian side that could also include more senior officials and new ones for that matter, because the most of the senior officials that have been there prior to the war have been killed in strikes over the last several weeks.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's -- I understand there's lots of skepticism out there, but this -- there are dynamics here that are at play that, I don't know, we'll see, diplomacy. Who could be opposed to the idea? We'll see how this continues to play out.

I do want to ask you about another member though, because two U.S. officials tell CNN a U.S. citizen imprisoned in Afghanistan for more than a year has been released. His name is Dennis Coyle, a 64-year-old academic was detained by the Taliban in Kabul in January 2025. And according to his family and the U.S. government, held in near solitary confinement while never being charged with a crime. I know you worked on hostage policy inside the U.S. government. What do we know about it?

PLITSAS: Yes, I've been, you know, actively monitoring Dennis's case for a while, well over a year now. And speaking with the folks who are working on it both in and out of government. I can tell you they were absolutely ecstatic today. They being, his family, you know, they gave a lot of credit to Adam Boehler, was -- the lead for, you know, for hostage affairs for the president. Sebastian Gorka, the senior director for CT on the National Security Council, and then there were actually folks who were outside of government who were tapped.

So former Ambassador Zal Khalilzad (ph). And then there were a few other folks that we saw in the photos that popped up. So it was a combination of folks both inside and outside of government leveraging relationships. You know, I think there's still some concern that the Taliban are still engaging what we call hostage diplomacy, in which they're taking and holding Americans hoping to get some concessions back from the U.S. And I just -- they don't seem to realize the negative repercussions it

has for them and the attention and focus that it draws and really serves as a hindrance to any sort of change in relations between the U.S. and the Taliban.

So this was definitely a good step in a positive direction, but there's still more to be done and still other individuals that need to be taken care of.

MATTINGLY: Yes, really important points, but a good news story and worth paying attention to. Absolutely.

Alex Plitsas, thanks so much for your time. I really appreciate it.

[17:30:06]

PLITSAS: Thanks for having me.

MATTINGLY: Someone out of the Iran mix, at least for today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Instead, he was actually in Miami testifying at a criminal trial for his old roommate. Some insight on that case, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, instead of being front and center for talks with Iran, at least for today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was in a Miami courtroom testifying in a case against former Florida Congressman David Rivera, Rubio's longtime friend and political ally.

In fact, the two were actually roommates sharing a house when they served together in the Florida legislature. Prosecutors accused Rivera of secretly acting as a foreign agent for the Venezuelan government between 2017 and 2018. They say he lobbied U.S. officials, including Rubio, then a senator, to ease political tensions and sanctions.

[17:35:17]

Joining us to discuss, CNN's senior legal analyst, Eli Honig. That's a lot of moving parts. Explain to people what was happening today.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So Marco Rubio was there only as a witness. Did absolutely nothing wrong. But he's a really important witness because DOJ's allegation against David Rivera, this former congressman who turned into a lobbyist, is that he violated FARA, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which says if you are going to lobby in the United States on behalf of a foreign country or company, you just have to register so we know who you are.

So there's not covert foreign influence. The allegations here is that Rivera lobbied Marco Rubio, among others, when Rubio was a U.S. senator. By the way, Rivera got $50 million, allegedly from the country of Venezuela, to lobby about things that have to do with Nicolas Maduro. Would he remain in power? Would he be eased out of power? Oil rights, sanctions. And so Marco Rubio is a key witness because the government alleges he is one of the key public officials who was illegally lobbied. He did nothing wrong, but the allegation is David Rivera was improperly trying to influence Marco Rubio.

MATTINGLY: I want to get to the bizarrely connective tissue between this case and what we've seen just since, I believe, January 5th. But just to start with, I think today was the day that I learned that this is the first sitting Cabinet member to testify in a criminal trial since Raymond Donovan testified in a 1983 Mafia case.

HONIG: You didn't know that offhand?

MATTINGLY: There's a nugget for that -- you probably did.

HONIG: No.

MATTINGLY: If you're a defense lawyer and you're trying to cross him, how do you navigate that?

HONIG: So I think he's a great witness, first of all, for the prosecution, right? You put him out there. You say, here's this distinguished sitting Secretary of State, former senator, and basically you say you would elicit from Rubio that this guy told me, tried to influence me and influence us on policy with Venezuela.

Straightforward. If you're the defense lawyer, you have to be really careful because you really have two ways you can go with any witness. One, this guy's a liar, or two, this guy's a truth teller, but he has good stuff for us. You can't go down into a federal courtroom in Florida and call Marco Rubio a liar. I don't think he is a liar. So I think what the defense is going to do is try to pick out items, factual items that favor you.

In other words, I think the gist is going to be, you, Marco Rubio, and this guy, you were old friends. You were roommates. And so he wasn't lobbying you. If you guys had a conversation, you had a lot of conversations with him. You talked about things. You talked about politics. You talked about the world. And that doesn't count as capital L, lobbying, and therefore is not a crime. I think that's where the defense is going to go with him.

MATTINGLY: This happens, I think, ousted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is going to be back in New York court this week.

HONIG: Thursday.

MATTINGLY: What are you watching there? So again, by the way, the combination of these two things and two separate administrations is like wild to me. But the guy who was responsible for the government that was paying, allegedly paying, David Rivera, now in the U.S. after being extracted from his own country, and he's going to be in court.

HONIG: It's all connected. So one of the big questions is, can the country of Venezuela pay Nicolas Maduro's legal fees? Maduro wants them to. The country of Venezuela apparently wants them to. But prosecutors are saying, no, that would violate sanctions that we have on Venezuela.

The big thing I'm watching for Thursday. Will this judge, Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who I appeared in front of many times, will he move this thing along? I can't believe how slowly he's moving it. It's been two and a half months since the arrest. They've accomplished very little.

We don't even have a trial date yet. So if I'm the judge, I'm saying this is important. We got to get this thing on tap for a trial. So I want to see how quickly the judge accelerates this case or doesn't.

MATTINGLY: OK, last one that I have to ask, because I'm in the chair, which means there's a Federal Reserve issue.

HONIG: Of course.

MATTINGLY: That is in your bailiwick that I want to ask you about. A federal prosecutor admitted to a judge earlier this month that his office didn't have evidence that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell had committed a crime related to that renovation. Again, the subpoenas have been quashed. Jeanine Pirro is appealing vociferously slow based on her press conference. You've read the transcript. What would you read on it?

HONIG: This is exactly why Judge Boasberg took the very rare step of quashing Jeanine Pirro's subpoenas, which she then had a press conference and was quite angry about. Because when you're a prosecutor, I used to have a stack of subpoenas in the corner of my desk, right? And I -- you can issue subpoenas quite readily. You don't need much evidence at all, but you need something. You can't have nothing and you can't have a bad reason for issuing a subpoena.

And so when a prosecutor is pressed by a judge and says, what's your reason? What's your evidence? He says, we have none. That's how you reach the rare point where a judge is going to quash a subpoena. So I think it's a really telling moment.

MATTINGLY: There's a space between smoking gun and none.

HONIG: A lot of space in there, yes. And if you're at none, then you got nothing.

MATTINGLY: Stacks of subpoenas in the corner of your desk.

HONIG: Hand them out.

MATTINGLY: You must have been fun at parties. Thank you, my friend. Great as always.

HONIG: Thanks.

[17:39:50]

MATTINGLY: Well, are the ICE agents deployed to U.S. airports some kind of practice run for the upcoming midterm elections? Our question from Steve Bannon. Let's make you wonder. Hear it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: In our Politics Lead, we've seen a number of Democrats who are calling out President Trump's decision to put ICE agents in America's airport. That includes Maryland Governor Wes Moore. He told CNN's Dana Bash today the move is about much more than easing long security lines. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. WES MOORE (D-MD): I continue to see him using ICE and, you know, this variation of their ICE to go and patrol neighborhoods even though they are sending people in neighborhoods who are untrained and who are unqualified and who are unaccountable. There is a much larger plan. I think these are all tools of how the President is trying to think about a much larger plan, which is if you cannot hold on to power through Democratic elections, then adjust Democratic elections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:45:06]

MATTINGLY: T.W., do you see a much larger plan?

T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT, PUSH DIGITAL GROUP: No, and I find that commentary wildly irresponsible. I think to draw a through line from TSA agents being overworked and understaffed because the Democrats are holding up a bill in the House to fund it and then drawing that to the SAVE Act and then drawing that to taking over elections is such a broad leap.

Look, the President did the right thing. We are at a standstill at Congress, much to my chagrin, I think the chagrin of millions of Americans. And he sent Immigration and Customs officers to aid in that.

ICE, by the way, which Democrats have a problem with, is funded for the next several years. That ain't changing regardless of what the Democrats say. And I wonder if Wes Moore even knows that CBP, Customs and Border Patrol, are at every single international airport every day working there as well. I think this was a wise idea by the President. I'm glad it's bringing it down the lines, but that rhetoric is, I think, irresponsible in a time like this.

MATTINGLY: Mo, I think sometimes the reason why that has caught on more than just with Wes Moore in the airports now, as T.W. was talking about, but in prior months where there's legitimate concern when you talk to Democrats, and in part it's because of people like Steve Bannon, who has talked about the idea of this, and including mentioning it just recently. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE BANNON, HOST, "WAR ROOM": We can use what's happening with these ICE helping out, helping out at the airports. We can use this as a test run, as a test case to get, to really perfect ICE's involvement in the 2026 midterm election, sir?

MIKE DAVIS, FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, ARTICLE III PROJECT: Yes, I think we should have ICE agents at the polling places because if you're an illegal alien, you can't vote, right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Just to be clear for people that don't live in this world, like Mike Davis is a connected individual inside the White House, very powerful outside actor in kind of the Trump MAGA sphere. Obviously, Steve Bannon, I presume most people know. Do you think what they're talking about is just red meat or is this something people should be thinking?

MO ELLEITHEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEORGETOWN INSTITUTE OF POLITICS & PUBLIC SERVICE: I think we should take it seriously and it's why I disagree with T.W. that, you know, it's a stretch to think that there's something bigger at play here because there has been. There's a history of a direct pipeline between things that are said on Steve Bannon's show somehow working its way into policy or at least, at the very least, the discussions at the White House.

The President has relied on ICE and you're 100 percent right. This is the point Democrats have been making. ICE is funded. It's already taken care of. And so, why Republicans not just separate it out as Democrats have proposed, fund TSA and make the reforms that need to be made to ICE rather than just allow them to run amok and hold up these poor TSA agents.

MATTINGLY: But the proposal's on the table right now and Schumer came out today and said, no, now we want, we want more.

ELLEITHEE: Democrats have been arguing consistently there are reforms to be made at ICE and we can pay the TSA agents. The proposal that was on the table just didn't address many of the reforms that Democrats have been saying, have been talking about. So, there was no need to send ICE.

You're right, CBP is at every airport but they're not working the security lines. Having a bunch of ICE agents who are not CBP, having a bunch of ICE agents standing around unable to operate the x-ray machines, completely untrained for the kind of work, that was nothing more than just a photo op.

But this President has relied on ICE in ways that are not appropriate, in ways that is not their mandate, their remit. And it does beg the question, why, when we have other options and we can get them funded, why?

ARRIGHI: I think that falls on deaf ears in large part because the Democrats are once again holding the country hostage when the situation does not call for it. TSA should be funded, all of Homeland Security should be funded. The President, with Tom Homan, have made a number of reforms to ICE that have turned the temperature down drastically. And yet, the Democrats won't change their tactics. So, whether it's body cameras, whether it's the neighborhoods they go in and how they patrol, there have been serious reforms and done in conjunction with Democratic governors and local leaders. And yet, the Democrats will still sit here and bang the drum that more and more needs to happen while people wait in line.

The fact of the matter is, we've seen that ticker. Wait times are going down because those agents are there. There is a customs component to their job. And I think it's been effective and I think the American people are like, all right, this needs to end. Fund it.

[17:49:55]

MATTINGLY: Mo, can I ask, Markwayne Mullin was sworn in today. He will be the big boss of ICE. It's been interesting. I talked to folks on the Hill, R&D, including some Democratic senators, two of whom voted for him, who like him personally, feel like they can work with him, definitely don't want to get in a fight with him physically. What's -- is this a change of direction for DHS that's coming now after the Kristi Noem era or is this going to be more of the same?

ELLEITHEE: We're about to find out. Look, I think there are people who feel like they can do, Democrats who feel like they can do business with Secretary Mullin in a way that they couldn't with Secretary Noem. I think that is generally agreed. But at the end of the day, and he said some promising things during his confirmation hearing about how he would do things differently.

But at the end of the day, one thing we know for certain about the Trump era is that it's the big, big boss who sets the direction, who sets the tone. And so unless the president changes his approach, it's questionable how much room Secretary Mullin actually will have.

MATTINGLY: To that point, how -- if you're Markwayne Mullin in this moment, knowing that this is the most important portfolio at the White House, it was the number one campaign promise, Stephen Miller has the oversight of it. How do you balance being a cabinet secretary and, I don't know, trying to do the thing that allows you to? It just seems complicated. What's kind of the strategy?

ARRIGHI: I think the dynamics in most administrations, there's tons of them and it's sometimes complicated. Senator Mullin is a good man, a bright man, incredibly hard worker who understands the MAGA movement, is in a close relationship with the President, understands how that White House works. I think as it pertains to immigration and some of these issues that we're talking about today, I think he needs to follow the model that's been successful and don't do the model that hasn't been successful, I.E. Kristi Noem.

We've seen how Tom Homan has found a lot of success. We've seen the portfolio move forward and not skip back on mission. I think it's accentuating what's working and ditching what isn't working. And we talked about Steve Bannon.

I think it's important to note here that when there were the tragic shootings by ICE officers of American citizens, it was Steve Bannon who was like, damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead, double down on it. And that lost out. That argument lost and fell on deaf ears to Donald Trump and he changed course. Mullin understands the dynamics at play and I think he's going to do a good job.

MATTINGLY: Last word?

ELLEITHEE: I was going to say, Steve Bannon also floated the idea of sending ICE agents to airports a while ago as a test run for the elections. And lo and behold, the President did it. So he does still have sway. If he's now pushing harder on these ICE agents at polling places, we'll see.

MATTINGLY: It is often hard to keep track of who's on the ear, who's effective in the ear. It kind of depends day to day. It is the one through line of this administration. Guys, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[17:52:54]

Well, breaking news. A verdict is just coming in in one of two major lawsuits involving social media giants and other users. A jury found Meta liable in a child exploitation case and ordered to pay $375 million. It's a big one. We're going to sort out all the details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: Breaking news in our Tech Lead, a jury in New Mexico has just found that Meta, the social media giant behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, violated the law in failing to warn users about dangers on its platforms and failing to protect children from sexual predators. This is a very big deal.

Let's get straight to CNN's Clare Duffy, who's been leading all of our coverage on this. Clare, tell us more about the verdict.

CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS TECH REPORTER: Well, Phil, this is a huge, really significant case. This case was filed back in 2023 by the New Mexico Attorney General, accusing Meta of creating a breeding ground for child predators by failing to prevent bad actors from accessing its platform, contacting children they don't know, and failing to warn teens and parents of these risks.

The jury sided with New Mexico on all counts in this case, accusing Meta, or finding that Meta, had willfully engaged in unfair and deceptive and unconscionable trade practices, and essentially ordering Meta to pay $375 million in damages here. And this is only the first phase of this case. There is another phase to be presented directly to the judge that could result in Meta having to pay additional financial damages and also make changes to its platforms.

Now, Meta says it will appeal this decision, and I'll read you what a Meta spokesperson told me about this decision. They said, we respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. But, Phil, just to take a step back here and talk about the significance of this moment, Meta, for years, has faced concerns from parents and lawmakers and advocates about the safety of young people on its platforms. And this is really the first time that we are seeing the company be held accountable in court for those concerns. And this certainly could set the stage for other states to follow the approach that New Mexico has taken here.

MATTINGLY: And Clare, there's also the outstanding social media case in L.A., which I think also involves Meta. Where does that stand?

DUFFY: So that case accuses both Meta and YouTube of intentionally creating addictive features that have harmed young people's mental health. In that case, we are in day eight of jury deliberation, still awaiting a verdict from the jury there, and it's not clear when that's going to come through. We have gotten some hints about where the jury might be leaning.

Last week, the jury submitted a question to the judge about getting instructions on how to fill out the damages form, suggesting that maybe they've made a decision, at least with regard to one of those two defendants. But then yesterday they submitted a question about what to do if they couldn't come to an agreement with regard to one of the defendants.

So sort of reading the tea leaves there on what that could mean, maybe a split jury with regards to Meta or YouTube. But obviously that decision is not final until it is final. And we will be watching closely on that one, Phil.

[18:00:00]

MATTINGLY: We certainly know you will. Clare Duffy has been leading in a tireless manner our reporting on this. Thanks so much.