Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Administration Mistakenly Texts Yemen War Plans to Reporter; Trump Holds Cabinet Meeting; Interview With Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta; Court Holds Hearing on Alien Enemies Act. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired March 24, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:46]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: President Trump is holding a meeting with his Cabinet, and Elon Musk has a seat at the table yet again.

We're following the headlines as backlash and legal battles mount over cuts by Musk's DOGE team.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Plus: a courtroom clash. The battle over a judge's order to block deportations heading to an appeals court. An emergency meeting is set for just minutes from now.

And Greenland seeing red. The country's prime minister slamming a planned trip to the island by U.S. officials, calling it -- quote -- "highly aggressive."

We're following these major development stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: Moments from now, President Trump will be facing what's really the biggest legal battle of his new term.

Lawyers for Trump's Justice Department will try to get an appeals court to overturn a federal judge's ruling temporarily blocking them from deporting planeloads of migrants under a centuries-old wartime law.

SANCHEZ: Now, you might recall judge James Boasberg halted those flights, saying the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify the deportations of suspected gang members is -- quote -- "problematic and concerning."

He's also considering whether the administration ignored his orders to halt those flights. Earlier today, Judge Boasberg refused to wipe away his orders.

Let's get the latest from CNN's Katelyn Polantz, who's live outside the D.C. federal court where this legal showdown is about to play out.

Katelyn, what should we expect?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Boris and Brianna, this case has layers to it, and not the entire case is what's going to be argued today here at the federal courthouse in Washington.

Today, it's about the power of a judge and the power of the president and whether it is possible for a judge in this courthouse, Judge Jed Boasberg, to tell the administration you can't use the Alien Enemies Act to remove people who are detained as migrants and sent out to El Salvador prisons because the president says so.

There has to be some level potentially of due process for them, potentially hearings, and that the courts need to have more of a role to make sure that this is being done legally.

In this case, the Justice Department is arguing that courts should step out, that this really is something where the president should have control, it's a national security issue.

So we're likely to hear arguments along those lines, not just that this is about deporting immigrants who are captured in the United States, detained and then put on planes out of the country, that this is also about the ability of the president to make national security decisions around drone strikes, around intelligence matters, other things very important to the security of this country.

But this is a country with the Constitution underpinning it. And Judge Boasberg, as well as the lawyers for the Venezuelan migrants who were sent to El Salvador, they are arguing that this is a due process issue, that these men should have had some more of a checks and balances, some more of an opportunity for a hearing before they were sent away and the United States loses control over them.

So there's a lot of drama in this case. This is a big moment to talk about the power of the executive branch and the checks around it potentially. It also, of course, could be a case that takes the hearing in a very procedural direction. That always has the potential as well.

But, today, we are really watching what the questions are going to be from these three judges on the panel, Judges Karen Henderson and Justin Walker, both Republican appointees, with Walker being an appointee of Trump himself to the bench, and then Judge Patricia Millett has a lot of experience in international law. She is an Obama appointee.

So, quite a lot to watch here.Hearings start in about a half-an-hour.

KEILAR: All right, we will be looking for that. Katelyn, thank you for the report.

Right now, President Trump is holding another meeting of his Cabinet. Elon Musk is at the table, as you see there, in a bright red hat, very visible.

SANCHEZ: Yes, we just got word from the press pool that was inside this meeting that it has wrapped up.

[13:05:03]

Let's go to the White House now with CNN chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny.

Jeff, get us up to speed on what's been going on at that meeting today as we're awaiting the tape turn of what transpired.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, we know that this Cabinet meeting, which features most members of the Cabinet, but not all of them, was called and was not originally on the president's schedule, but it was added. He invited the press in.

You get the sense that he wants to perhaps take a bit of focus away from the hearing that's going on not far from the White House here that Katelyn was just talking about, but with Elon Musk at the head of the table. He's wearing that red hat that said "Trump was right about everything."

So that gives you a sense of what the level of dialogue is like in there. Of course, this meeting is coming a couple weeks after there was a fairly heated meeting earlier this month, when Elon Musk and some of his requests and some of his moves to a shrink government were really met with some controversy from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and others, wanting more autonomy for their agencies.

We're told at least so far from what we're seeing from this meeting it's very positive, very upbeat, offering a lot of praise to Elon Musk, but there has been considerable more information going back and forth to the agencies, the president also is speaking for at least a half-an-hour, asking some questions of his Cabinet members.

One interesting thing we're seeing so far on the economy, he said, it is not his economy yet, still talking about the Biden economy. There are many references in this Cabinet meeting from many secretaries over the high cost of eggs to other things, blaming the Biden administration, the president saying it's not his economy yet, but it soon will be and then it will start going in the right direction.

So we shall see about that, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio also talking about Ukraine, of course, Ukraine front and center this week in the news, as negotiators from all countries are meeting in Saudi Arabia to try and move forward a possible deal for a cease-fire -- Boris.

KEILAR: All right, Jeff, thank you for that.

Let's turn now to CNN senior political analyst Mark Preston.

I will say Elon Musk, and there's a lot to focus on at this hearing, but Elon Musk does have a way of showing up at these Cabinet meetings...

MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.

KEILAR: ... attired in a way to draw attention, which is no mistake. PRESTON: Yes, I mean, the guy is a showman, I mean, no doubt.

You don't become the wealthiest person in the world in not believing yourself, perhaps be just a little bit narcissistic, right, in order to think that well of yourself. But it is interesting that Donald Trump, A, does look up to folks that he sees as his equal.

And, of course, Elon Musk is the wealthiest person in the world. And, two, he also is standing where -- right behind Elon Musk. He has basically told his Cabinet officials, lookit, it's your job to go and deal with your work force, but if we don't think that it's cut enough, then we're going to send Elon in and he will do the cutting.

SANCHEZ: DOGE cuts were a big part of the conversation, as well as a recent attacks on Tesla dealerships. Elon Musk was given an opportunity to respond to that.

We also understand that the president was asked about Greenland, this delegation of officials in the United States headed there, saying that delegation was invited there. And also on the price of eggs, the president was asked specifically about that. He passed it to the agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, who talked about wholesale prices going down.

I wanted to ask you, Mark, about that specifically, not necessarily the price of eggs, but overall the economy, Trump also saying that he wanted to see interest rates come down, but that claim that Jeff Zeleny pointed out, that this is not his economy.

PRESTON: Right.

SANCHEZ: When does it start being Trump's economy?

PRESTON: OK, so if it wasn't Donald Trump and we hadn't seen a total remaking of the federal government, as we have seen since he has been sworn in from office, I would agree with him. It would not be his economy. It would start to be his economy, but it really is a holdover from we know where we were during the Biden administration.

However, what he has done, not only to the federal government, but what he has done overseas and how he is -- appears to be cutting a deal with Russia and in everything that's going on in the Middle East, it's his economy at this point. He has full ownership of the economy right now.

Clearly, he doesn't want to have full ownership, because, if he has full ownership, that means that he's going to have to take blame for where we are right now. And a lot of people are upset.

KEILAR: I also wonder what you think of the timing, because, as we heard going from Katelyn's report into Jeff's, Jeff noted that the timing of this coincides, of course, with the hearing on the Alien Enemies Act

And there was also a development last week where there's sort of a self-generated headline out of the White House that also drew some of the media attention away from this. What is it about the sort of referendum in court or the look of the scrutiny of what's happening with the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act that Trump is not happy with, that he would like to draw attention away from?

[13:10:01]

PRESTON: Well, look, there's clearly some problems with it.

And we do understand that, when the Trump administration came in, they told us what they were going to do. They were going to flood the zone. They were going to do as much as they possibly could. And they were going to go straight to court. And guess what? I have been saying this for weeks now.

If they get half through, they will be incredibly successful. But you're right. The biggest showman of all is Donald Trump. He takes this little shiny object, starts putting it up over here. Everyone starts to turn their attention to it. At the same time, questions are being -- are coming up now because the way that they deported these folks, there appears to be some problems with some of those folks that they sent down to Venezuela -- rather, down to El Salvador.

So I do think that they're trying to draw attention away from it, specifically if he loses. But the question is, if he does lose, if he does lose, is he going to follow the law or is he going to continue doing it? Who knows?

SANCHEZ: Yes, that is an open question.

On the question of immigration, Secretary Kristi Noem of DHS also there claiming that the border is almost completely secure, that they are getting the worst out of the country. She also touted her upcoming trip to El Salvador to that famous prison where some of those migrants were sent who are now part of this legal case against Trump.

Overall, how would you say that those who supported President Trump and were eager for this kind of immigration crackdown view these first few days in office? Because they seem to be thrilled with how Trump is doing, albeit in the face potentially of the rule of law.

PRESTON: Right, so let's talk about where we are now and where we will be 10 months from now.

Where we are now, they're very happy because they're seeing change come to Washington. Remember, Washington is a foreign place for most people and it's a very strange place. There's no doubt about that. And it doesn't really connect well with Middle America. So they're happy about it. They love hearing the pronouncements that the border is safe, although I would suggest or it's almost all buttoned up, don't ever make pronouncements.

I remember when George W. Bush said mission accomplished. And guess what? Mission was not accomplished. But, really, what it comes down to right now is, can Donald Trump survive the next seven, eight, nine months with all of this support? I think he can, but then that's where we're going to see all these federal cuts are really going to come home to roost, so people will be upset.

KEILAR: Washington can be a weird foreign place even to those of us who've lived here more than a few years.

PRESTON: Kind of weird.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: I'm not talking about you.

SANCHEZ: We appreciate weirdness here on CNN.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: I'm talking about Washington. You, Mark, are normal and wonderful.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Mark Preston, thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: Still ahead this hour, we're following some high-stakes cease-fire talks between U.S. and Russian officials, and the latest headlines may be setting off alarm bells in Ukraine.

KEILAR: Plus, the Trump administration making new accusations against a Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate arrested by ICE officers in an apparent effort to bolster its justification for his detention.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:17:24]

KEILAR: This just in.

Editor in chief of "The Atlantic" Jeffrey Goldberg says he was accidentally texted war plans.

SANCHEZ: Yes, we literally just received this piece from "The Atlantic."

And, in it, Goldberg writes: "U.S. national security leaders included me in a group chat about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. I didn't think it could be real. And the bombs started falling."

CNN's Alex Marquardt joins us now live.

And, Alex, this piece came out literally in the last few minutes.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Moments ago.

SANCHEZ: I haven't been able to read through all of it, but this seems like something out of a farce, like out of a comedy.

MARQUARDT: It is just stunning on so many different levels.

And I understand why Goldberg didn't believe it was real, because it is just shocking in several different ways. Goldberg was added to a Signal chat with some of the most senior national security members of the Trump administration. Signal is a messaging app that is encrypted, probably why these officials thought that they could have a discreet conversation on there.

But on it, they -- in this chat that Goldberg was a witness to, they talk about the planning for the recent bombing of the Houthis that started on March 15. They talk about current intelligence assessments. There is a full on debate among these officials about whether they should carry out this bombing of the Houthis.

And these are conversations that could be in violation of the Espionage Act. Now, this group was started, it looks like, by the national security adviser, Mike Waltz, who called it the Houthi P.C. Small Group. P.C. refers to Principals Committee. The principals in the administration are the senior-most officials.

And among that group of senior officials, you have the national security adviser, the vice president, the secretary of defense and of state, the director of national intelligence, the CIA director, Steve Witkoff, the special envoy, the chief of staff to President Trump. And the list goes on. There are 18 of them.

So there is this debate over whether the U.S. should go through with this bombing of the Houthis. Vice President Vance is actually arguing against it, saying that just 3 percent of trade goes through the Red Sea, which is where the ships have been targeted by the Houthis.

Ratcliffe, the CIA director, he chimes in with current intelligence assessments that may be related to intelligence operations that are ongoing. Goldberg does not print that because, of course, that, among so many other details in this, are so highly classified.

Hegseth, the secretary of defense, he chimes in, saying that waiting a few weeks or a month wouldn't fundamentally change the calculus. And he notes, interestingly, that, if this leaks, we look indecisive. Of course, it would eventually leak.

Now, keep in mind, as they're having this discussion, Goldberg is watching all of this unfold. And he doesn't know, again, whether it's real, but he would quickly learn that it was.

[13:20:09]

On the morning of March 15, which is the day the bombings began, Hegseth, the secretary of defense, posted a team update at 11:44 in the morning saying the bombings were about to start two hours later. And in that message to this large group again, including Goldberg, he posted operational details about these strikes that were about to happen, information about targets, about weapons, and the attack sequencing. Two hours later, the strikes started. Goldberg looked up on Twitter

and he started to see explosions happening in Yemen, and that's when he knew it was true. And that's when these officials essentially started celebrating. You have John Ratcliffe, the CIA director saying, "A good start."

Mike Waltz, this national security adviser, responds with several emojis, as does Steve Witkoff, with two hands praying, a flex bicep and two American flags, so everyone approving of what just happened and celebrating.

The National Security Council has not pushed back on this at all. They said that this chain was in fact real. Brian Hughes, the National Security Council spokesman, says this does appear to be an authentic message chain. They are looking into how and -- someone was inadvertently added, how Goldberg was added to this chain.

And he tries to spin it as a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials, so no pushback from the White House on terms of the authenticity of this. But, again, this may violate the Espionage Act. Jeffrey Goldberg and his colleague Shane Harris, who's an intelligence reporter, spoke with several lawyers who say that it may have violated the provisions that govern the handling of national defense information.

Bottom line, they say, quite...

KEILAR: To put it on Signal.

MARQUARDT: To put it on Signal. They should not have established a Signal chat in the first place is their conclusion, which is kind of obvious.

And then the kicker of this whole piece is, as Hegseth is describing how this is going to unfold and what is going to happen, he says, "We are currently clean on OPSEC," which is operational security. Clearly, they were not clean because they included a journalist in this conversation on Signal.

KEILAR: OK, who was the J.G. who thought -- who was missing, who should have been part of the conversation?

MARQUARDT: We don't know why Waltz initially reached out to Jeffrey Goldberg and added him as a contact and then eventually added him to the group. You're absolutely right. They probably thought they were adding someone else from within the administration who had a similar name.

Why this mistake happened is just the first of a very long list of questions.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

Alex Marquardt, thank you so much for bringing us this reporting.

Let's talk more about this with former Defense Secretary and former CIA Director Leon Panetta.

Secretary, I'm reading the piece as we speak, and it's interesting because Goldberg writes that he had very strong doubts that this text group was real. "I could not believe that the national security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans. I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless," he writes, "as to include the editor in chief of 'The Atlantic' in such discussions with senior U.S. officials."

Secretary, what's your reaction to this reporting?

LEON PANETTA, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, it's obviously a very serious mistake on the part of whoever included Goldberg in this highly classified chain of command messaging that went on that involved war plans.

To have had somebody from "The Atlantic" on that chain without question was a serious mistake. And I hope the White House takes this seriously, because the last thing you want to do when you're talking about war plans is to have a serious leak like this that could undermine the war plans, but also jeopardize lives.

So I hope they take this seriously.

SANCHEZ: What would that look like, Secretary?

PANETTA: I think they would have to do a full investigation as to who included this name on that chain involving the highest officials in national security, from the president, to the vice president, to a secretary of defense, et cetera.

How the name of a journalist was added to that list, this is just a serious blunder, and not only could violate the espionage laws, but, more importantly, can undermine our national security. That's probably the greater problem, is that it reveals our most secret war plan that require that we protect that information in order to be able to conduct what is obviously a serious operation of war.

[13:25:11]

SANCHEZ: To that point, Secretary, I wonder what could have happened here if it wasn't Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief at "The Atlantic," who received this and decided to publish this story, if it had been someone else on the contact list that was added to the Signal chat. What would have been a worst-case scenario that would have put national security at risk?

PANETTA: Well, the worst-case scenario -- I mean, thankfully, Jeffrey Goldberg just assumed that this was either a joke or some kind of mistake and obviously didn't pay attention.

But somebody who would have the United States as an adversary could reveal this information immediately to the Houthis in Yemen that they were about to be attacked, and they in turn could have responded and attacked U.S. facilities in the Red Sea, causing casualties of our troops and of our men and women in uniform.

So, if it were somebody who did not have the United States' national security interests at heart, but rather had the interests of our adversaries at heart, he could have seriously disrupted these war plans.

SANCHEZ: I wonder what you make of the administration's response framing this, not denying the story, but framing this as an example of a thorough policy discussion, a thorough discussion about how to approach policy toward the Houthis.

PANETTA: Well, look, this is a chain of command. It's provided so that our top officials can have that conversation as to whether or not to conduct these war plans. So there's no question this is legitimate.

But what they're not paying attention to is that you have included somebody on the outside who has no business knowing about this information. There was a mistake here. Somebody on "The Atlantic" got the most sensitive e-mails you can imagine at the federal level.

That is a serious blunder. It has to be investigated. And somebody, frankly, needs to get fired.

SANCHEZ: Who do you think that is, sir?

PANETTA: Whoever put that chain together,. Somebody put that name on a list. And whoever that was deserves to be fired.

SANCHEZ: I wonder, Secretary, what you think of the use of Signal, the app, as a way of conducting these conversations. Is that in itself appropriate?

PANETTA: I think, depending on the level of security involved -- and I'm assuming it's a high level of security or they wouldn't use it -- that it can be a legitimate way to try to have that conversation regarding war plans. But what you have to do is make certain that whoever is on that chain has a high level of security clearance and has a right to know the information that is part of the discussion.

And that's certainly not true for Jeffrey Goldberg.

SANCHEZ: Secretary, I wonder. I mean, you have served -- we only mentioned two of the positions that you have served in. You're a former congressman. You were chief of staff, defense secretary, CIA director, et cetera.

In your experience at the federal level, have you ever been aware of anything like this happening, a journalist apparently inadvertently included in this sensitive a policy discussion being relayed war plans?

PANETTA: No, not at all.

Frankly, the way it would have worked in my time is that we would have met in the national security chamber that's highly secure, located in the basement of the White House, that we would have had people there who'd been cleared. We would have known who was there, and we would have had that discussion in person.

Because this involves war plans, you want to make very sure that those who have proper authority in our national security chain are there and are being asked what is their view with regards to whether or not these war plans ought to be implemented. This is a very serious matter.

When you're planning an attack on an adversary, you want to make very sure that that information is highly classified and highly protected.