Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Report: Trump Admin. Accidentally Texts Reporter War Plans; Judge: "Nazis Got Better Treatment Under The Alien Enemies Act" than Venezuelans On Trump Deportation Flights Did; Appeals Court Holds Hearing On Trump's "Alien Enemies" Deportations. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired March 24, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We are starting now with some jaw-dropping security lapses by Trump administration officials. War plans inexplicably shared with the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, who has revealed how he knew about these recent U.S. attacks on Houthi rebels in Yemen hours before they happened.

In this article published just a couple of hours ago, Goldberg says U.S. National Security leaders included him in a group chat, clearly inadvertently. He says he didn't think at first that it could even be real, and then the bombs started falling.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: The encrypted conversation happened on the app Signal and included messages from some of the top officials in the White House, including Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz.

With us now, CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Alex Marquardt and CNN Chief National Affairs Correspondent Jeff Zeleny.

Alex, this is stunning, to say the least. How could this have happened?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: This group, led by the National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, decided that they were going to have extraordinarily sensitive conversations on a messaging app, albeit one of the most encrypted ones, but still a messaging app, well outside the norm of how these decisions and conversations normally take place. For what reason? Certainly, that is one of the questions that we are trying to figure out and we'll be asking them.

It is extraordinary on a number of levels, in terms of the breach of security, the insight for all of us, through Jeffrey Goldberg, into these deliberations. Obviously, a lot - all kinds of classified information that was included in these conversations that Goldberg, because of National Security reasons, did not include. We put some of those officials on the screen who were on there. There were some 18 of these principals, as they're known. The list goes on to include the Secretary of State, as well as the CIA Director, the Director of National Intelligence.

And so, this conversation was started by Mike Waltz three days - four days, excuse me, before the latest bombing of the Houthis in Yemen by the Trump administration. And you see some of the conversation in the debate. Actually, J.D. Vance, the Vice President, is pushing back rather strenuously against this decision to take a strike, saying, I think we're making a mistake, and others in the conversation, including Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary, says, well, this actually doesn't have to happen right now. We can still go ahead with it in a month's time.

They decide to go ahead with this strike, and two hours before it happens on March 15th, an update was sent to this large group, which, of course, included the journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, by Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary, in which he includes information on the forthcoming strikes.

[15:05:08]

Information about targets. The weapons that would be used and the attack sequencing.

Now, after this series of bombings goes forward, there is some celebration and attaboys, if you will, on the group from a variety of these National Security officials. And, as the CIA Director says, a good start, because this was to be the beginning of this new heightened bombing campaign against the Houthis.

Now, the National Security Council has not pushed back on the veracity of this, so this does appear to all be true, and these do appear to be the real players, which was something that Goldberg really doubted in the beginning, because he was privy to what seemed like and what was extraordinary information.

But Boris and Brianna, now, once we get past this initial shock of what was included in here and how this all happened, there are going to be significant questions about how this information was shared, what violations there must have been in terms of the Espionage Act and other laws, and what kind of hearings and repercussions there may be going forward.

KEILAR: And Jeff, at one point, there's a really interesting quote that comes from J.D. Vance, Goldberg writing something that he texted in the Signal chat. "I'm not sure the President is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now." He goes on to talk about a further risk to see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices.

What's interesting is after that, Jeff, and it became apparent to the White House that Goldberg had been on the text chain, a spokesperson for Vance reached out, seemed to be very sensitive to the, I guess, idea this created that there was daylight between Trump and Vance and tried to emphasize very much that there was not. How are they reacting over there to this?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Brianna, that was definitely interesting because we do not often see any daylight between the Vice President and the President. So, that wasn't actually a very instructive window into how decisions are made. And the Vice President went on to really say some blistering things and non- charitable things about our European allies, which are not necessarily outside of his worldview. We know them very clearly. But that was interesting.

But the President was asked about this just a short time ago when he was appearing with the Louisiana governor at an economic event here at the White House. He claimed he knew nothing about this article. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it's a magazine that's going out of business. I think it's not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They were using Signal to coordinate on sets of materials and --

TRUMP: Having to do with what? Having to do with what? What were they talking about?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With the Houthis.

TRUMP: The Houthis? You mean the attack on the Houthis?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.

TRUMP: Well, it couldn't have been very effective because the attack was very effective, I can tell you that. I don't know anything about it. You're telling me about it for the first time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So, you heard the President's words there, and he certainly looks like he is hearing about this for the first time. However, if that is true, if that is true, that certainly raises many questions of a different kind, that the story has been out for more than two hours at that point when he spoke there, and if he was not briefed on it, that is also very interesting.

We know this president is someone who receives news often by watching television on his own, by looking at the social media on his own. He's been a big critic of The Atlantic, but he said he didn't know about it. We will see if that continues.

But the bottom line here is the White House is reviewing how Jeffrey Goldberg got added to this chain, and also reviewing whether this type of conversation should have been on this chain in the first place. Boris and Brianna.

SANCHEZ: Jeff Zeleny live for us at the White House. Thank you so much. Let's dig deeper into the fallout from all of this with CNN Senior Military Analyst, retired Admiral James Stavridis. He's a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and is now a partner at The Carlyle Group, a global investment firm.

Admiral, great to see you in person.

I heard you kind of chuckling at times when we were hearing this report. What's your reaction to this?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: You know, I think all of us have a tendency to chuckle when we hear something that is just British expression alert here, gobsmacking. It's just an incredible breach of security. I really have never seen anything like it in my four decades in uniform. And I've operated at these very high levels.

So, what's supposed to happen is all of this should be taking place behind the deepest of classification systems, generated across something called SIPRNet, which is a highly classified means of exchanging information. The idea of using Signal, an unclassified, albeit encrypted somewhat app, is just staggering.

[15:10:06]

And I'll conclude by - think about this kind of from the inside, you know, an unclassified albeit encrypted somewhat app is just staggering. And I'll conclude by think about this kind of from the inside out. This will drop in front of our troops who are constantly told you've got to guard and protect classified information or you will go to Fort Leavenworth. This will drop in front of our allies who are hearing not only disparaging comments from the Vice President who thought he was in a safe space, but he wasn't.

Our allies will be highly discouraged and less likely to share intelligence with us in the future. And how about in Beijing, and Moscow and Caracas, Venezuela? It's high fives. It's real insight into our process. I truly think this deserves a deep investigation, a lessons learned and never, never to happen again.

KEILAR: There are so many questions to ask you. It's just an astounding story. But since you obviously have this eye to NATO, all of those texts about the freeloading Europeans, all caps, PATHETIC from Pete Hegseth. What does that do when you then have to go sit with those counterparts and try to get along, ask for favors, cooperate.

STAVRIDIS: And share intelligence, all the above is damaged. And let's face it, that transatlantic bridge between the United States and our European partners is already kind of creaking. A lot of this is not going to be shocking to them to hear it, but to hear it so directly, so vividly and in the middle of operational activity is deeply concerning.

And final thought here, Jeff Goldberg, the editor of Atlantic was very careful not to reveal a lot of the details, but if it went to him, who else could it have gone to? These were strike points. This is American aircraft going to this point. That's out there in an unclassified - putting our airmen in this case at risk.

SANCHEZ: I want you to expand on that, because you mentioned Beijing, Moscow, and Caracas. These are some of the top officials in the administration, in the cabinet. There's no question that intelligence folks for these adversarial governments are trying to figure out what's on their phones, right? So it's not just the fact that they included this person - this journalist in this conversation. It's also if their phones get lost, if their phones get hacked. It's quite possible that that intelligence could have been obtained by an adversary.

STAVRIDIS: Oh, absolutely. And Signal, although its, you know, level of encryption used among some business people and I guess some families who are trying to avoid sharing a lot of information, that's not top flight encryption in any sense. It is absolutely vulnerable to China and Russia in particular. So you've got to assume everything on those Signal accounts, and I hope we're going to learn has this been going on for two months? Like, I'm sure it's going to stop like now, now, now.

But everything that has passed those Signal circuits over the last two months, we've got to consider that that is compromised, it's being read in Moscow, it's being read in Beijing, probably being shared with their partners and friends as well.

KEILAR: I do want to turn to Ukraine, Russia.

STAVRIDIS: Sure.

KEILAR: Because I have a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander question for you. This is about Steve Witkoff. He's been really one of the point people when it comes to these negotiations. He's met with Vladimir Putin now multiple times. And he said this to Tucker Carlson over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE WITKOFF, SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE MIDDLE EAST: Well, first of all, I think the largest issue in that conflict are these so-called four regions, Donbass, Crimea, you know, the name ...

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, THE TUCKER CARLSON SHOW: Lugansk, yes.

WITKOFF: ... Lugansk and there's two others, they're Russian-speaking.

CARLSON: Yes.

WITKOFF: There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule.

CARLSON: Yes.

WITKOFF: I think that's the key issue in the conflict.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KEILAR: Okay. So, I have a question for you, because first off, these aren't so-called regions. They're oblasts. They are regions. And Crimea isn't one of the four. That's from a previous conflict.

STAVRIDIS: Right.

KEILAR: And it isn't Lugansk. It's Luhansk ...

STAVRIDIS: Right.

KEILAR: ... and Donetsk, and Kherson ...

STAVRIDIS: Yes.

KEILAR: ... and Zaporizhzhia. Those are the four areas that have been annexed ...

STAVRIDIS: Right.

KEILAR: ... by Putin. How problematic is it that you have someone in such a important position who is lacking rudimentary knowledge of the - of Ukraine?

STAVRIDIS: It's concerning, obviously. And it's Crimea plus those four regions ...

KEILAR: That's right.

STAVRIDIS: ... which constitute a land bridge from Crimea.

[15:15:05]

It's the heart of what Putin wants. And what I really was concerned about when I saw that clip was the looseness of - and there have been referendum, and the vast majority of the people want to be in Russia. I haven't seen that data. And I know there are parts of those regions where there is more Russian spoken than in other parts of Ukraine. But it's a stretch, at least, to say that there have been referenda to the degree there have been. They've been conducted under Russian authorities, so guess how those are going to come out.

So as with everything with Russia and with Vladimir Putin, you have to take it with an enormous grain of salt. And I hope that Mr. Witkoff, who is indefatigable in moving all around the globe, moving these very important conversations, not just in Ukraine. He's also deeply involved ...

KEILAR: Right.

STAVRIDIS: ... in the Middle East. He's becoming kind of a part of the whole diplomatic apparatus of the United States. He needs a staff that can really get him informed, so he has - got the basics of what's going on. That's going to be crucial.

KEILAR: Might need a map while he tries to staff up there.

Admiral, thanks so much for being with us. Really appreciate it.

STAVRIDIS: My pleasure. Thanks a lot.

KEILAR: Still to come, a high-stakes hearing over President Trump's use of wartime powers to deport alleged gang members playing out in court right now. We have the latest on this escalating legal battle.

SANCHEZ: Plus, new reports on White House officials working to lower expectations ahead of their so-called liberation day on April 2nd. That's when tariffs are set to kick in. What effect that's having on people's 401Ks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:21:08]

KEILAR: Happening now, President Trump's Justice Department is trying to get an appeals court to lift a federal judge's temporary block against Trump using that sweeping wartime authority to quickly deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang.

SANCHEZ: One of the judges overseeing the case described Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act for those flights as, quote, "unprecedented territory." Later going on to say that Nazis were treated better after World War II than these migrants. CNN's Katelyn Polantz is live outside the courthouse.

Katelyn, bring us up to speed on what's happening behind you.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris and Brianna, this hearing is not yet over, though it is winding down. And what we heard today so far since this started at 1:30 is that the Justice Department, they wanted this discussion to be about the power of the presidency, that courts should have no role. That is not where it ultimately landed.

Much of the argument was about a much narrower idea. Do migrants who are apprehended and detained under immigration authorities that Donald Trump can control, do they have the right to come into court and argue they shouldn't be removed from the country under the Alien Enemies Act?

So, the startling quote was from Judge Patricia Millett is that piece of - that statement she made early on in the proceedings, let's listen to that exchange here, which she had with the Justice Department attorney, Drew Ensign, responding to her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE PATRICIA MILLETT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT: There were plane loads of people. I mean, it was also - it's a class action. There were plane loads of people. There were no procedures in place to notify people. Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act.

DREW ENSIGN, DOJ ATTORNEY: Well, Your Honor, we certainly dispute the Nazi analogy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POLANTZ: So this is a situation where Judge Millett, she is an Obama appointee. She has a lot of experience in international law. She is asking the Justice Department with that startling analogy about the possibility that the administration can just send people out of the country, take Venezuelan migrants in this instance and send them to a Salvadoran prison where they would be no control over them anymore.

And the Justice Department is saying, no, that's not what we're trying to argue here. But the questioning like this was not just from Judge Millett. It also was from Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee on the bench, the newest appointee at this panel of these three judges at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. And he's been discussing more about the other ways the courts can get involved to look at things. And said at one point in this case actually should be in Texas and not before this court. We didn't hear from that third vote yet at all in court today. Judge Karen Henderson, she didn't ask any substantive questions. Back to you.

KEILAR: All right. Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much.

Let's bring in CNN Legal Analyst Elie Honig. He is a former federal prosecutor. Elie, what stood out to you in the appeals court hearing so far?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Brianna, I think the most important takeaway is that both sides, including the Trump administration lawyer, agreed that there is some legal avenue whereby these people can challenge their detention and their deportation. Now, that's a procedure called habeas.

The problem here, though, the sort of catch 22 is, first of all, it's really hard, not impossible, but it's legally more difficult to make a habeas claim if you're no longer on U.S. soil. And most of these people have now been removed physically from the United States, so that's number one.

And then number two, when it comes to a habeas action, how can you bring it or how can these lawyers bring it if they don't even know exactly who the people are or exactly where they're being held.

So, there is some base agreement, though, that these people who were deported do have some right to go into court.

[15:25:01]

But the question really is, do they have to do it through this separate habeas proceeding, as the Trump administration agreed? Or can they contest this under the Alien Enemies Act? That's with the ACLU, the challengers were arguing, that they get this hearing before they get deported. So that's the key question before the court here.

SANCHEZ: And Elie, the underlying view of the Alien Enemies Act is an open question because it supposedly is meant to be applied to foreign nations, an incursion of citizens from a foreign nation. But here it's being applied to a gang. Obviously, that's not necessarily what's up for discussion in this hearing today. But overall, how do you see this playing out for the Trump administration, their argument that they should apply to a gang and not just a foreign country?

HONIG: Well, I think it's definitely a stretch, as you can see just by looking at the plain language there. You're right, Boris. That specific issue, does this gang constitute an invasion or an incursion by a foreign government? That did not really come up today in any substantial way in front of the court.

But it's worth noting, the example that Katelyn cited where Judge Millett said Nazis were given better treatment in the United States, that was not just a rhetorical flourish. She was referring to the fact that the last time this law, the Alien Enemies Act was used here in the United States during and after World War II, Germans who were under suspicion and who were subject to that act, they were given a hearing before a hearing board.

And so, one of the arguments that the challengers were making, and that at least one of the judges seemed to agree with, is there does have to be some sort of hearing, some sort of process where these people can say, maybe I'm not a member of this gang. Maybe I'm not the right person who you say I am.

But what - the key breakdown here is the ACLU was saying that has to happen before you put them on the plane and get them out of the country. The Trump administration was saying, well, they may have some remedy after the fact. So, that's really the key dispute here.

SANCHEZ: Elie Honig, thanks so much for the analysis. Appreciate it.

HONIG: Thanks, guys.

SANCHEZ: Still ahead, genetic testing company 23andMe filing for bankruptcy and California's top law enforcement official is urging anyone who submitted their sensitive information to the company to delete their accounts immediately. We'll discuss in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)