Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

White House Holds Briefing Amid War With Iran; White House Won't Commit to Seeking Congress' Permission to Deploy Troops; White House Reiterates Timeline for Iran War is Still Four to Six Weeks; Jury Orders Meta, Google to Pay $3 Million in Social Media Addiction Trial. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired March 25, 2026 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: -- flying out of town tomorrow.

How convenient and lovely of them that they get to go to the airport and that they'll get to go home to their families, when you have families, TSA workers, who are suffering. You have people across the country who are missing flights for funerals and for work commitments because of Democrat politicians on Capitol Hill.

Mary (ph), in the back.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thanks, Karoline.

LEAVITT: Glad to see you have a seat now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do. Thank you.

Is the White House satisfied with Republican leadership's efforts on the SAVE America Act?

LEAVITT: I think the President has made it very clear, he wants everyone on Capitol Hill to move as quickly as possible to get the SAVE America Act passed, and he wants to see that legislation on his desk as soon as Republicans and Democrats can move to pass it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But are there any lawmakers in Congress that the President is frustrated with on this matter and feels could be doing a better job?

LEAVITT: I think the President wants to see everybody on Capitol Hill move faster all the time. He wants everyone in this town to work at Trump's speed like we do here at the White House.

I'll go to Karen (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Karoline. I have two questions on Lebanon, if I can.

Is the U.S. providing support at this point for Israel's ongoing offensive in Lebanon? And is the president concerned that right now, there are more than a million people who've been displaced and potentially could be for a significant amount of time?

LEAVITT: That's not something I'm in a position to comment on for the first question. To the second question, of course, that's something that would concern the president. I think that's why he's, again, quickly moving to eliminate the threat of the Iranian regime in the Middle East, including weakening their proxies like Hezbollah, who have terrorized Lebanon for far too long.

And I know that the president wants to see this, again, move as quickly as possible as we can over the course of the next couple of weeks here. Kristen?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Karoline, I have questions on the Strait of Hormuz. If these negotiations are not successful, is the only option to reopen the Strait boots on the ground, given that all of our allies have essentially said that they are unable or unwilling to help?

LEAVITT: Look, that's a hypothetical question. It's a hypothetical question. It's also a decision that would have to be made by the Commander-in-Chief, and I'm not going to get ahead of him.

HOLMES: And on that -- in addition to that, when it comes to the Vice President, J.D. Vance, what has changed that has made him more of an active participant in these negotiations with Iran?

LEAVITT: I don't think anything has changed. Vice President has always been a key member, the president's right-hand man and a key member of the president's national security team. He's been part of these discussions throughout this entire course of the administration with respect, again, to the 12-day war that the president and his national security team negotiated a solution to, with respect to the ceasefire between Israel and Gaza and the release of the hostages, which there was a lot of criticism that couldn't get done, and it did.

The vice president has been by the president's side every step of the way, and any reporting otherwise is just completely false. I see him in the room. Again, the president seeks his counsel on all matters, both foreign and domestic.

HOLMES: Can you just tell us who exactly the U.S. is negotiating with in Iran and why the U.S. and this administration trusts that person?

LEAVITT: Again, as I said to Gabe's (ph) question earlier, we're not going to get into the details of these negotiations and conversations that continue to take place, as of course you can imagine, they are very sensitive diplomatic discussions. And I would reiterate, I do recall giving all of you the same answer when we were negotiating the ceasefire between Israel and Gaza, gave you the same answer throughout the 12-day war between Iran and Israel, gave you the same answer with respect to many of the other global conflicts that this administration has negotiated solutions to.

President Trump is going to give his diplomats the freedom that they need to have these sensitive diplomatic discussions without negotiating and litigating them through the news media. Fran (ph)?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Karoline, just to follow up though, because you said that some of the information that's been out there about the 15- point plan is inaccurate. Can you say what is accurate with respect to ballistic missiles, the nuclear ambitions, and the Strait of Hormuz, which are things that the president has laid out that he wants to see a couple times in the past?

LEAVITT: Look, if you've heard it from the president of the United States, obviously it's true. As well as the objectives of Operation Epic Fury, we've said repeatedly, I've said them from this podium, the Pentagon has reiterated them, that's why we've taken military action to achieve them.

So, of course, those are goals that we want to see, but this full 15- point plan that's been floating around in many of your outlets, there's a lot of misinformation to that as well. And again, I would caution you from taking things from anonymous sources rather than verifying them directly with the White House.

Christian (ph)?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks, Karoline. Two on Iran. First, would the president consider loosening asylum restrictions for Iranians trying to flee the country right now?

LEAVITT: Again, that's a question for the president. I won't get ahead of him on that. I haven't talked to him about that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. And then, secondly, you mentioned at the top that Iran would be hit harder than they have been to this point if they don't recognize the fact that they're losing this war. Could those strikes happen before this five-day negotiating window closes, if the president doesn't think they're negotiating in good faith?

LEAVITT: You're asking me to tell you if the commander-in-chief would authorize very strong strikes against the Iranian regime. That's not something I would ever reveal from this podium, true or not. Phil?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Phil, in the back.

[14:05:00]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Karoline. I was wondering if you would respond to some of this criticism of the administration from past allies like Joe Kent, who have said that the president's red line shifted from 'Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon' to 'Iran cannot pursue nuclear enrichment.' What is the administration's response to that criticism?

LEAVITT: I think the president and I have both strongly responded to the criticism by Mr. Kent, who unfortunately resigned in disgrace and accused the president of basically being controlled by foreign countries and foreign manipulation, which is a ridiculous and laughable assertion. So his accusations have zero credibility as far as this White House is concerned.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The question of the red line shifting from 'no nuclear weapon' to 'no nuclear enrichment,' is there any substance to that argument?

LEAVITT: I think the president has been quite clear in what he wants to see from the Iranian regime, which is why he chose to launch Operation Epic Fury in the first place. Reagan (ph)?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Karoline. I have a question for you on the SAVE Act, and I'd like to follow-up on the DHS shutdown.

LEAVITT: Sure.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: First, Senator Mike Lee.

LEAVITT: The SAVE America Act.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: SAVE America Act. The president corrected me yesterday. That was my fault. Senator Mike Lee said it's essentially impossible to pass the SAVE America Act through reconciliation. What's your reaction to that? Is the president worried that that strategy might fail?

LEAVITT: I think he's willing to try all strategies. I spoke with him about this yesterday, and he said if we can make it work through reconciliation, let's absolutely do that. These again are common sense policies that are backed by the vast majority of voters across this country.

The only people in this country who don't support them are politicians on Capitol Hill, and you all should ask them why they don't want voter ID, why they don't want proof of citizenship to vote in our nation's elections. Again, these are common sense proposals that are wildly popular, and the president is willing to use any means necessary to get this legislation passed and onto his desk.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then on the DHS shutdown, do you expect deportations to decrease while ICE is in the airports? What are the trade-offs of having ICE in the airports right now?

LEAVITT: Well, to address this, obviously, short-term problem and the chaos that has been sowed by these Democrats on Capitol Hill, to address the lines and to get Americans traveling and get them to where they need to be.

So the president, I think this was a creative solution, again, that was criticized, but we have seen wait times decrease, not as much as we'd like. Hopefully, they will continue to, but at major airports over the course of the last few days as ICE has been facilitating with travelers in these airports.

(CROSSTALK)

LEAVITT: Sure. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Karoline. On March 6th, the president said in an interview with Reuters that the U.S. should have a role in choosing Iran's next leadership. Now that we're almost four weeks into the operation, is that still the president's assessment of where things should go?

LEAVITT: As I've said repeatedly, I think the president obviously believes the United States wants to have someone in leadership position in the Iranian regime that will be much more favorable, that will be willing to work with the United States, that will no longer chant 'death to America.'

These would obviously be good, common-sense things for the United States and for our allies. I think that's what the president meant when he spoke with Reuters that day. Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president yesterday said that he had achieved regime change in Iran because the regime has changed in terms of --

LEAVITT: I mean, has it not?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, the leadership --

LEAVITT: Their entire leadership has been killed, and nobody has really seen or legitimately heard from this alleged new leader. So, wouldn't you say there's been a change in the regime?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's been a change in leadership. I mean, do you feel as though --

LEAVITT: There's been a change in the regime leadership, which is what the president said. So thank you for confirming he is right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, do you feel as though you've achieved leadership level, the personnel in place right now in Iran that you're satisfied with? I mean, have you --

LEAVITT: I think it's too soon to say.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In terms of highly enriched uranium in Iran right now, is your expectation -- I mean, the stated desire of the president has been to prevent nuclear weapons. Is your expectation that the endgame here is that eventually, Americans will be in possession of that uranium, or you'll somehow have some direct control over the highly enriched uranium that could be used to develop a nuclear weapon?

LEAVITT: Again, this is a point of conversation that continues. I think you know the means in which the United States would have to take in order to achieve that goal, and that's a decision for the president to make. Brian (ph)? Good to see you, Brian Glenn.

BRIAN GLENN, REPORTER, FOX NEWS: Good to see you as well. Does the White House have a comment on a letter that was sent from Congressman Raskin to the DOJ alleging that the DOJ recklessly released damning information in regards to President Trump's documents? LEAVITT: Yes. I saw that letter from Congressman Raskin this morning, who I would add has zero credibility, and this letter was clearly a cheap political stunt.

[14:10:00]

What the congressman did here, Brian, and for everyone in the room who's hopefully not reporting on this as fact, is that he took untrue and salacious claims in a memo that was produced by Jack Smith, who has been completely discredited for his lawfare and his witch hunts against this president. And that information was unverified. It never even made it into the indictment because it was so unverified.

And what happened to that indictment anyway? It was thrown out. And Jack Smith has been proven, again, to be a prosecutor on a witch hunt against President Trump. He tried to throw him in jail ahead of the 2024 election. The Biden Department of Justice was fully on board with this lawfare campaign.

And in fact, this story that was concocted by Congressman Raskin was so ridiculous, I understand his communications team reached out to some outlets in this room who responsibly said, we're not going to write this because this is just too much. However, of course, MS NOW did write that story this morning because they continue to be left- wing propaganda for the Democrat Party. But I think Jack Smith has been proven to be a liar and a fraud.

And this is, again, a cheap political stunt from a Democrat on Capitol Hill, who I think wants to get himself on cable television. Thank you all very much.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": We've been listening to Press Secretary, Karoline Levitt at the White House answering questions about the conflict in Iran and a number of other issues, some big headlines.

We now have a date set for the meeting between President Trump and Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. Remember, it was delayed because of the conflict in Iran. It was originally supposed to start in April. Now, we're learning that President Trump is going to travel to Beijing May 14th and 15th, and Trump will later host Xi in Washington at a later date.

It was interesting because Leavitt was asked specifically whether that meant that the White House anticipated that the war in Iran would wind down at that time, if that was a precondition perhaps for setting this date. She said that they approximated four to six weeks for the war. So she told reporters, you do the math.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Yeah. And she was also asked about these soldiers from the 82nd Airborne, who are, as we speak, getting ready to deploy. And she just said that they're meeting the goals of their operation in Iran expeditiously.

So let's bring in Haley Britzky, who has been reporting on these new troop movements, to talk a little bit about what she said there about what that might mean. She's really not buying into that idea that this could actually mean a further U.S. prolonged engagement in the region.

HALEY BRITZKY, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: That's right. So Karoline, as we just heard, kind of said that this is giving the president more options. So even though we're hearing some optimism from the White House about these talks, which Iran has, of course, cast doubt on, she's saying that these troops, the 82nd Airborne Division soldiers going over, are just giving him more options because, obviously, they can be there for any on-the-ground operations that the commander of U.S. Central Command may decide to go forward with, with the president's blessing, of course.

And sources have said that these soldiers would be essentially the ready unit on the ground. So open for whatever options the president wants. We've seen them deploy rapidly in the past, specifically to the Middle East.

We saw them deploy when the U.S. was withdrawing from Afghanistan in the wake of the killing of Iranian Commander, Qasem Soleimani. So this is certainly nothing new for this division. It is the 1st Brigade Combat Team that we know is going forward.

A battalion of theirs is going forward first and others to follow. So it certainly will give the president more options on the ground for however he decides to go. But as you mentioned, I mean, as Karoline just said, they are, say, they're meeting their goals expeditiously. So what that would look like is still unclear at this point.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. Also declined to promise that the White House would seek congressional authority before any ground troops were deployed, saying that at the moment, it's unnecessary.

Let's go back to the room with CNN's Kristen Holmes. Kristen, you asked for some specifics from the press secretary on exactly who the United States would be engaging in talks with on the question of the war in Iran. She wouldn't provide specifics.

A lot of the questions that she was asked, as reporters try to nail down specifics, she wouldn't actually offer any details, any facts to back them up. Instead, she sort of cast doubt on reporting about the 15-point plan that the U.S. apparently presented to the leadership in Tehran.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, what we got was a lot of what has happened in terms of actual fighting or strikes in the United States, but not a lot of where we are going or what the purpose is or what actually happens next. She wouldn't confirm any kind of in-person talks. We, of course, have reported that there are plans, or at least they're working on plans, to have these talks maybe in Pakistan. The vice president could attend those talks.

We've also been reporting what we've been hearing from Iranian sources and Iranian state TV, that they have basically rejected the 15-point plan and they have come back with their own five-point plan. She said basically not to pay attention to that at all, that there was other stuff happening behind the scenes.

We didn't get any information on who is negotiating with the United States.

[14:15:00]

The other part of my question was, why do we trust them? How do we know that they have power given the tenuous circumstances in Iran? That wasn't answered.

Yesterday, President Trump talked about this gift that he got from Iran that proved that somebody in power was in control and having conversations with the United States. And yet, we still don't know what that gift was. They was asked specifics about whether it had to do with ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. She wouldn't answer that.

This is coming at the same time that we're seeing lawmakers coming out of their briefing with administration officials saying they asked questions that they were not able to get the answers to. There are so many specific questions, particularly when it comes to boots on the ground. And we heard Haley there talking about that this is just there as kind of a backup unit.

That's kind of how she was alluding to this, giving him all the options. But there are Americans who are deeply concerned about how close the United States is to actually putting boots on the ground.

And when I asked another question about what happens if these talks are unsuccessful, she said that's a hypothetical. Well, Boris, that's not a hypothetical. It's a contingency plan. A hypothetical would be, in some kind of crazy universe, we're coming up with different scenarios. We are talking about something that has happened repeatedly between the United States and Iran, even before we launched into this war.

There have been talks that have fallen apart over and over and over again. The only difference now is that we have military waiting on the sidelines and the American people deserve to know if those military units, if those Americans are going to be put on the ground there. And we just don't have the answers there on what the goal is and what exactly is happening here in terms of the buildup, the military buildup and those talks with Iran.

KEILAR: Yeah, you weren't asking about an alien invasion, to be clear there, Kristen Holmes. I want to bring in former Defense Secretary, former CIA Director, Leon Panetta to talk about what we just heard. And also, Secretary, if you can just speak to, there's this concern, of course, that Iran gets this vote, right, and whether the U.S. is engaged in this prolonged war for which it doesn't have an appetite.

And the administration has been very clear, four to six weeks is the timeline that they're aiming for. That said, if war is a continuation of politics by another means, does it make sense when you're seeing this addition of troops, the 82nd Airborne, the Marines and others that you already see deployed in the region to keep the pressure up on Iran? Does that make sense to you, even as we're not getting really big answers on this from the White House? LEON PANETTA, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, we really don't have a lot of answers here. But I think if you kind of stand back, it's pretty clear that what the president is doing by deploying these troops there is to try to increase his leverage with regards to dealing with Iran, by making clear that the United States has troops deployed there.

We've got a large force that's located there. We obviously have the potential to continue this war. And at the same time, Iran continues to make attacks on both the Gulf as well as Israel. So the war is kind of continuing, but you can't get away from the fact that there are negotiations going on.

And the biggest challenge is who are going to be the key players. Obviously, something's going to happen in Pakistan. We don't know who the players are, but there are players that are exchanging thoughts here.

Secondly, there has to be an off-ramp to try to give these, whoever they are negotiating, some kind of opportunity to kind of either provide a temporary ceasefire or something that allows for these attacks to cease while the negotiations are going on. And then when it comes to the key points, we know what the key points are that they're going to have to deal with.

They're going to have to decide on a permanent ceasefire. They're going to have to decide on what happens to nuclear enrichment and just exactly how that's controlled. They're going to have to decide whether or not missiles development is going to be limited.

They're going to have to decide what happens with the Straits of Hormuz. And the likely result there is some kind of international sovereign group that'll run the Straits of Hormuz. And they're going to have to decide on lifting sanctions to Iran.

Those are kind of the key points that ultimately are going to have to be part of a resolution if this war is going to end.

KEILAR: Yeah, obviously, a lot to figure out there. Secretary, thank you so much for being with us. We really appreciate it.

We have much more news ahead as we're tracking the latest developments and reaction from the White House on this Iran war.

[14:20:00]

Lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee have just been briefed on the war. We're going to talk to the top Democrat on that Committee straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: A blockbuster outcome in the social media addiction trial against Meta and Google. A jury in California found the two tech giants liable after they were accused of intentionally addicting a young woman and injuring her mental health. [14:25:00]

This landmark decision is expected to set the precedent for hundreds of similar cases against tech firms.

SANCHEZ: Let's turn now to former Federal Prosecutor, Ankush Khardori, and CNN Chief Media Analyst, Brian Stelter.

Brian, what kind of reaction are you hearing? I imagine that appeals are forthcoming.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: That's right. Number one, we've heard from a group of parents who have lost children to suicide, who have blamed technology for those deaths, cheering about this ruling, saying this was years in the making.

And now, the jury is back behind closed doors as we speak, debating punitive damage. Essentially, these jurors get to decide how much to charge these tech giants to deter them from similar conduct in the future. So punitive damages could be well in excess of that $3 million figure that we heard last hour.

That's the compensatory damages just for this single family. The punitive damage figure could be much higher. It's an extraordinary moment. You know, the federal government -- the feds have not done much to hold tech companies accountable for the addictive design of these technologies. Congress has abdicated its responsibility. The regulators, you could argue, they've been MIA.

But here a jury has stepped in. A jury, Average Angelenos, you know, from Los Angeles, they have weighed in and they have said these companies are liable. And you look at the language here, negligent in the design of their platforms, knew their design was dangerous, failed to warn of those risks and caused substantial harm to the plaintiff.

It's all about design in this case. It's about how the tools are created and then, ultimately, used by the by the individuals. We all know, we all feel it when we use these devices. These tools are capable of incredible benefits, incredible gains, but also immense harms. And this ruling is really important, this jury finding is really important in the A.I. age as chatbots increasingly take over our lives as well.

So this jury finding, it's going to have implications for many other tech companies as they design tools, technologies and apps in the future.

KEILAR: And Ankush, the jury awarded a total of $3 million in compensatory damages here. Additional punitive damages could also be awarded. Maybe that's just a drop in the bucket for Meta, but this is a bellwether trial, right? There are other cases. And take us through as well, what this could mean to how these companies do business, the reputational issues here. Uh, it's pretty broad.

ANKUSH KHARDORI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yeah. Well, look, the big question is the punitive damages question, of course. Yes, it's just one case, but this was just one plaintiff too, right? So on the New Mexico case, when there's a case brought on behalf of larger groups of people, the verdicts get larger.

And this has now sort of set a bit of a precedent in that regard. So, you know, $3 million doesn't seem like a lot. It probably is, you know, a bit of a drop in the bucket for these companies. But, it's not nothing if you scale it out.

In terms of the response from the companies, you know, a couple of things are going on here. First, this legal sort of strategy is novel. It is treating these platforms sort of like as consumer products and bringing cases against them based on sort of consumer protection type claims, tort claims. That strategy developed because of Section 230 immunity, which has remained in place.

But plaintiffs have been trying and failing to bring these sorts of cases, getting blocked by Section 230 immunity. So I do think people in Congress will be paying attention to this. I can tell you from my own discussions with members, Section 230 reform is very much still on people's minds. I would expect this verdict to resonate at least somewhat in Congress.

The companies strategically now and maybe in their business interest to make some revisions to their business model in these areas, sort of proactively try to get out ahead in front of some of these more adverse developments. So those are the things I would imagine are sort of swirling around.

SANCHEZ: Ankush Khardori, Brian Stelter, thanks so much for breaking down that news for us. One of many stories we're going to keep an eye on.

Still to come, the White House declining to commit to seeking congressional authorization before deploying troops.

KEILAR: We're going to talk to the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee about this next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)