Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: Trump Admin Accidentally Texts War Plans To Reporter; Judges Weigh Arguments In Alien Enemies Act Hearing; U.S., Russia Hold Talks On Potential Ukraine Ceasefire; Dow Rallies On Hopes Of Trump's "Flexibility" On Tariffs. Aired 3-4p 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.

[15:00:38]

MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: Hello. Welcome. I'm Max Foster. This is CNN NEWSROOM.

We begin with that breaking news. An extraordinary breach at the highest levels of the U.S. government. There are questions over the future of Donald Trump's national security adviser after he accidentally apparently invited a journalist to a government group chat about the United States plans to bomb Yemen.

Mike Waltz invited the editor in chief of "The Atlantic", Jeffrey Goldberg, to a group chat, apparently including cabinet members J.D. Vance, Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio. The White House has confirmed that the messages in "The Atlantic" article appear to be authentic.

Speaking a few moments ago at the White House, President Trump appeared to be completely unaware of any controversy.

(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". It's 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?

REPORTER: That they were using Signal to coordinate on sensitive materials, and --

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

REPORTER: With the Houthis?

TRUMP: The Houthis? You mean the attack on the Houthis? 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. Any --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: CNN's global affairs analyst, Kim Dozier, joins me now just starting with that.

I mean, we all seem to know about it before the president.

KIM DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, the story did just break, "The Atlantic" story just did hit the digital wire, so to speak. But so Signal is an app, an encrypted app that was started by, some former government engineers and others. And it's the one that's most recommended to use, like when I want to speak secretly to a government official or in a way that protects them, they usually recommend the Signal app, and that's pretty standard around the world.

And the problem here, though, is that the government has encrypted communication channels that it's supposed to use. When you use those channels, though, that all becomes part of the permanent official record. So sometimes I've been aware of this for years, and multiple administrations, different administrations will use signal to have a quick and easy conversation between a group of people that is relatively secure.

So will Mike Waltz, the national security advisor, who apparently inadvertently added "The Atlantic" editor Jeffrey Goldberg, to this private chat, will he get punished or investigated? If it were Trump 45, the first Trump administration, and you had a traditional FBI director and a traditional DOJ head? Maybe. But I think that Trump is going to say, hey, Mike, don't do it again. And we're going to move on from there.

FOSTER: I mean, a lot of people making the debate about this is, you know, a secure app. It's kind of irrelevant, though, isn't it? The mistake was that someone was invited into it. So encryption wasn't the issue here.

DOZIER: Yeah.

FOSTER: It was -- it was a it was a blatant security breach caused by the security advisor.

DOZIER: At least that is according to Goldberg's account, it was Mike Waltz's phone that invited him into his address book. And then later on, he was added to this chat. The details are coming from Jeffrey Goldberg, the NSC spokespeople are not refuting it, denying it, but they don't seem to be fighting it all that much, like they're trying to pass it off as not a big deal.

It is also true that you introduce extra risk by using, an app on a phone, especially if you're a government official. The phones can be piggybacked, hacked somehow, you can go to a cocktail party and somebody in signals intelligence, a spy can get close to you and try to put a keystroke tracker on your phone, so that even if the Signal app is communicating properly from one person to another, that keystroke logger is logging everything that you type.

[15:05:14]

So there are various different ways that using even government cell phones, that they can be hacked. And that's one of the reasons that you're supposed to stick to more secure communications. Multiple White Houses. I've spoken to senior officials who, you know, if they're senior enough, like the national security advisor, they will have sensitive compartmented information office in their homes so that they can use the highly encrypted government communication systems instead of a phone.

So I imagine were going to have a review of what was done and how it was done. And they're not going to use this kind of method again for that kind of high level operation.

FOSTER: Donald Trump was obviously very critical of the journalist here, but the journalist didn't cover the story until the attack had happened. If it was someone else who was in that chat. They may well have disrupted a very expensive, very sensitive operation. So actually, the journalist did the right thing, arguably by not disrupting this.

DOZIER: Yeah. Now, Jeffrey Goldberg says that he wasn't sure until the bombs started falling that this was legitimate. Many of us in the media space in D.C. get bizarre messages to our phone numbers, et cetera. And then after, though, the bombs started falling and it was clear that, oh, I'm part of a legit high level government conversation.

Then, Jeffrey Goldberg and his colleague Shane Harris worked to first nail down that it was a real conversation, but also to talk to lawyers, et cetera, to figure out, you know, they shared with spokespeople what they had, including some highly classified stuff that would reveal things like sources and methods and maybe people on the ground. And they didn't publish any of that.

That is a -- if you're -- if you're an intelligence writer in D.C., that's a -- a common conversation you'll have with a government official. You'll come to them and say, I have this story and I'm going to publish it. Will you offer me a comment?

And sometimes, they'll come back to you, especially if it's a CIA operation, and they'll say, if you publish it this week, you will endanger the lives of, say, the U.S. troops on the ground who are working with an intelligence agency to carry something out.

It's not clear if there was anything in that information going back and forth in the app that was that tactical that could have disturbed some operation on the ground. But if somehow this was penetrated by, you know, for instance, the Iranians have very good signals intelligence. If they penetrated any one of the 18 or 19 people that were apparently on this group chat, then they could have given the Houthis on the ground enough warning to move the missiles or move the personnel that they were targeting.

According to the White House, though, this was a very successful strike or a series of strikes, they took out a number of high level targets among the Houthi militants who are both behind the civil war in Yemen with funding from Iran, but have also been firing rockets and missiles towards Israel and menacing trade traffic going through the coasts there. FOSTER: Okay, Kim, thank you so much for your insights there.

I mean, the other point to make is that someone who realized they were on a really big chat could have found a way of capitalizing on future by staying on the chat. But obviously, the public interest thing to do would be to declare there on the chat and come out of it. So I think a lot of people are also looking at how you would handle this as someone that's interested in the public service. But, Kim, thank you so much.

A major legal showdown in Washington. Meanwhile, a U.S. appeals court is deciding whether to overturn a freeze by Judge James Boasberg, blocking the administrations use of an 18th century law that's been used to quickly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members with no due process.

Our crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz is tracking this story from outside the courthouse in -- in D.C.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: This hearing today on these flights of Venezuelan migrants out of the country, the Justice Department came out swinging, they said immediately, this is about the power of the presidency and his use of the alien enemies act to make a decision such as, like in times of war.

[15:10:00]

And the way the D.C. circuit responded was almost immediate questioning -- hold on. Really? Is that what we're talking about here?

Judge Patricia Millett of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, she had the first question at these arguments, and she said, you know, this isn't about the president giving a order to move a ship in war from one place to another. This is about the rights of individuals and whether they can have the ability to go before a judge and even argue that they are not someone who could even be subject to this act, the Alien Enemies Act, people who would be arguing that in this case, potentially, that they're not from the gang, Tren de Aragua.

So this is where the arguments are going. It is continuing on here at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a very important test, early test for the Trump administration as they try and preserve all of the abilities that Donald Trump wants to have to handle migration, immigration in the United States, and to remove people from the country. The courts currently looking at the role they may play.

We're not expecting a decision from the bench today during this hearing, but listening to what questions these judges are asking is very important. It is a judge that is an Obama appointee. That's Judge Millett, who was leading the questions at the start of the hearing. But then Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee himself, he had some very similar questions just a few minutes in as well.

Back to you. (END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: Let's bring in our legal analyst, Joey Jackson.

Thank you so much for joining us, Joey. I mean, you look at this language, this legal language all the time. Which way do you think this is going?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah.

You know, we're in very different times in this country, Max, and we're in different times because generally, it's very traditionally stated you have an executive that is the president who enforces the law. You have a congress who passes the law, right? And then you have the judicial branch, and they determine whether or not the laws are constitutional.

We're in a place right now where the executive is assuming very broad authority and he's being permitted to do it because the other branch of government and they're all co-equal is really acquiescing to him, right? That is the Congress, where you have 100 senators, 435 congresspeople from the 50 states in the United States. And they're allowing the president to do what he -- what he will, right?

And so to the other issue in terms of where it's going, remember, the other real big question here is that it starts off at the district court. That's the very lowest level court. It goes to the circuit court, right? There's 13 of them.

And then it would end up going to the United States Supreme Court. Remember, Max, that there are six conservative justices on the court, three of which Mr. Trump appointed. And so we're at an inflection point as to whether were going to see the answer to your question being political in nature, wherein my response would be, well, the president will get what he wants because the supreme court is full of his people or whether or not there'll be some pushback as to what makes sense.

And so what ultimately happens here, I hope, would be predicated upon the law and not politics. That issue remains to be seen as Mr. Trump asserts broad authority with respect to removing people from the company -- from the country at a time where it is not war. By the way, using an act, the Alien Enemies Act, which was designed for that very reason, when there was a war.

FOSTER: But it's a legitimate act, some would argue in Trump circles to use because it exists. It is there to be used. Are we talking about the application here? Is that ultimately what the Supreme Court will need to decide about when it can be applied?

JACKSON: So, Max, there's no question about it. We're talking about the application. It's a legitimate act. It's on the books. It's a law from really 227 years ago.

And it was designed to be used when you had alien enemies. World War I, alien enemies, 18 -- war of 1812, alien enemies. As we look there at the act from 1798, World War II, alien enemies.

What are they? They are people who are from the country at issue, who were at war with. And they could potentially represent a danger to the United States if we are at war. If we're not at war, the president has the right to decide whether there is in some kind of invasion, right, or incursion that is predatory in nature, that represents a threat.

So when the application with the president is seeking to do is use this broad really review of this law to say, hey, you know what, this is not a war now. But by the way, you're involved in a cartel or you're doing something else destructive to this company -- this country, excuse me. And as a result of that, it is an invasion. It is an incursion. You're gone.

And the real importance of that is because due process is the essence of United States government. What does that mean? Due process is notice and the opportunity to be heard. You don't get to deport someone because you say they're a gang member. There's an actual process where you have to determine factually whether that's true.

[15:15:02]

And in the event you factually determine that they are a gang member, then you get to the next analysis, whether or not this act applies under these specific set of circumstances.

But I think the concern here, Max, is that you're rounding up a group of people under this act, under a broad interpretation of it. You're telling them you're out of the country and there's no ability or recourse for them to say, wait a minute, I don't even know about a gang. Is that a fair representation? Is it not? That's what courts are for. And that's the very issue that we're dealing with here.

FOSTER: Joey Jackson, really appreciate the way you explained a very complex issue there. Really appreciate that. Thank you. Joey.

JACKSON: Absolutely.

FOSTER: U.S. officials are pushing for a broader ceasefire in Ukraine as they meet with their Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia. The Kremlin says the talks will mainly be focused on a possible Black Sea maritime truce that would allow supplies such as grains to flow freely. Ukraine and Russia last week agreed to stop attacks on energy facilities. Trump administration officials are eyeing a more expansive 30 day ceasefire.

Senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen is in Moscow for us. I mean, there is some progress, it feels like here, but it's nowhere near the full ceasefire that Donald Trump was talking about in the first place.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, maybe a little bit of progress. But at the same time, of course, we know the fighting on the ground. Max is still very much continuing in Ukraine. You have those aerial attacks that are going on as well. The Ukrainians are saying, and the Russians are saying that the Ukrainians are attacking Russian energy infrastructure.

And today, Max, the Kremlin came out and said that there are indeed still a lot of very complicated issues that need to be dealt with before this broader ceasefire can go into place.

Nevertheless, the Russians, of course, as we know, are eyeing more than that. They want to fundamentally change relations between Russia and the United States, where they want better business relations and sanctions relief as well.

I was able today to speak to the CEO of one of Russia's largest banks, and he told me some of the optimism they see, but some of the reservations that they also still have.

Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDRIY KOSTIN, CEO, VTB BANK: Our relationship actually between -- between Russia and America were ruined basically over the last years. So to restore them, it will take time. But what we definitely see, I think it's a really good intention and sincere intentions on the part of the President Trump and the will to help Russia to resolve this issue, to restore Russian-American relationship.

PLEITGEN: What about Western companies and specifically American companies coming back to Russia? I know there's some in Russia who believe that in the second quarter that could already happen. How do you see that unfolding?

KOSTIN: Well, I think we've got already a Russian Big Mac, so I'm not sure whether we very much need McDonald's anymore. But no, I expect that there will be process of coming back, though. Mr. Putin recently said that there should be price to pay, particularly for those companies who left Russia abruptly and, you know, damaged Russian economy.

But I think the process of normalization of relations will take some time. But business is much less political. You know, business wants to -- to do business. And I always remembered our good relationship with many American companies, American banks.

PLEITGEN: What will it take to get things like trading back? You are right that obviously a lot of Russian companies, a lot of Russian investors also moved away from -- from dollar trading, for instance. What do you think it will take to bring that back now that the country is also in a trajectory where the leadership says they're looking actually more towards the East than necessarily future relations with the U.S.?

KOSTIN: Well, I think it's the area, financial sector that the area which shouldn't be weaponized. There should be free from any political influence or other things, otherwise it will undermine substantially already -- already undermine substantially the trust and increase the risk. And it's undermined, I think, the position of dollar. I mean, maybe its a little too early to say about this, but I know in many countries people think, oh gosh, if its happened to Russia, well, its going to happen to us, maybe one day. It's the same in China and Arab world.

So I think we should be very cautious in trying to use sanctions. Probably we should put maybe a new legal framework of not allowing this to happen in the future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PLEITGEN: Andriy Kostin there, the head of Russia's VTB Bank, the second largest bank here in Russia, speaking to me earlier today at their bank HQ in Moscow. But again, of course, until it gets there, there still are, of course, a lot of steps. One of the things that the Trump administration has said, Max, is they want to see a full cease fire between Ukraine and Russia before business relations can be normalized, Max.

FOSTER: Fred Pleitgen in Moscow, thank you.

Well, it's a little after 10:00 at night in Istanbul, where protesters are back out on the streets denouncing the arrest of the city's mayor and defying orders to go home. Police have arrested more than a thousand people over the past few days, protesting Ekrem Imamoglu's detention. He's a chief political rival of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is calling the unrest a movement of violence.

[15:20:09]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, TURKISH PRESIDENT (through translator): What we have witnessed in the last five days has shown us the truth. Again, a country like Turkey has a main opposition party that is too small, too primitive and too weak in terms of foresight, vision and quality. It has become apparent once again that they could not be trusted to run a country, let alone local governments or even a buffet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Well, on Sunday, a court formally charged the mayor on corruption charges, charges which Imamoglu denies.

I want to bring in Istanbul, bureau chief for "The New York Times", Ben Hubbard. At this point, we should point out that, you know, he was obviously arrested shortly before the opposition were due to formally appoint him as Erdogan's main competitor in elections, right? It was quite.

BEN HUBBARD, ISTANBUL BUREAU CHIEF, NEW YORK TIMES: A stunning series of events. We basically had a number, a series of blows against Imamoglu this week, just a few days before he was supposed to be designated as the presidential candidate. Tuesday, suddenly, his 35- year-old graduate degree was invalidated by Istanbul University based on some technicality. Presidential candidates are supposed to have higher education, so that could knock him out of the presidential race. Before he was able to -- to file an appeal for that, he was arrested, accused of corruption and accused of supporting terrorism. And then, of course, on Sunday was detained pending trial on the corruption charges where he is now.

Since then, we've seen basically mass protests every night, certainly in Istanbul and in many other of Syria's -- of Turkey's largest cities. It's a bit unclear where this all goes now. I think the question for the opposition is how they manage to keep pressure on the government. Erdogan has a tremendous amount of power in this country. And to find a way to sort of find a in the armor that they can exploit to try to move things forward is going to be, I think, very difficult for them.

FOSTER: Very brave, aren't they? Many of these protesters going out, you know, they are. It's largely peaceful until there's a clash with the police and they're taking that risk by going out.

Do you feel there's some sort of turning point here, or is it just an expression of frustration?

HUBBARD: I mean, so far it's definitely an expression of frustration. I mean, I went out last night and I was quite impressed by the energy of the crowds. I was very impressed by the youth of the crowds. It's many, many college students younger people, sort of at the beginnings of their professional lives, are sort of looking at the start of their professional lives and feeling like they don't know if they have faith in the future of the country. They're worried about the state of the economy. They're worried about the state of the politics, and what's that going to mean for them?

And also many older people. We interviewed a 69-year-old grandmother who was out there protesting because she was angry about this. And so there's definitely a certain large sector of society that is angry that this is the way that things are going. The question is that when you have a government that has this much power, and when you have a leader like Erdogan, who's been in power for effectively 22 years, is figuring out what exact levers you have as an outsider to try to change the situation.

FOSTER: Well, we're watching these images very closely and seeing what happens tonight.

Ben Hubbard, thank you so much indeed for bringing us your insights from Istanbul.

We'll be back after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:26:32]

FOSTER: Elon Musk attended another cabinet meeting with a Trump administration cabinet. The tech billionaire had a prominent seat at the table as a cost cutting senior advisor to President Trump. During the meeting, several cabinet officials outlined their efforts to target what they called wasteful spending, and the U.S. attorney general pledged to prosecute any fraud discovered as part of Musk's DOGE efforts.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny is at the White House, this is as there's a bit of a debate about how much power he's got, whether he's an advisor or an enforcer.

What did you read from it, Jeff?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, one thing is clear. He certainly has a seat at the -- at the head of the table there and was wearing that red hat that said Trump was right about everything.

So if it sort of sends off the vibe that this may not necessarily be an open forum for any critical discussion from cabinet secretaries, which, of course was the case about two and a half weeks ago when Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy voiced some concern about all the slashing that was being done at the agencies, at the hand of Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency.

But that was not the -- the vibe at the meeting this morning. It was very positive. People were praising Elon Musk. People were praising the president for choosing Elon Musk. So, certainly not much give and take. That was not very flattering to the president.

But there is no doubt Elon Musk is just at the beginning of this phase. He is with the president virtually every day, even over the weekend. He was with him this weekend at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, traveled with him to Philadelphia for some wrestling championships.

So Elon Musk is always at the president's side. And that might make cabinet secretaries unwilling to speak out with any critical voice there, because they know the president likes him quite a bit.

FOSTER: I just want to ask you as well about this. I mean, I was going to describe it as a leak of major military secrets on this chat group, but it wasn't because the journalist was actually invited in. But Donald Trump doesn't -- didn't even seem to be aware of it. I mean, once he's got his head around, what happened, what do you think his reaction will be?

ZELENY: It is a great question. It's an extraordinary breach of protocol in every sense. Also an extraordinary window into this administrations thinking. But we do know that the president does not like "The Atlantic". They've had some very sharp and a -- and a critical reporting of him. Jeffrey Goldberg, the reporter the president has called out time and time again.

So when the president finds out, it's -- it's his piece of work here, he certainly will not be pleased. However, just a few moments ago in the Roosevelt Room here at the White House, the president acted or insisted he didn't know.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of "The Atlantic". It's -- 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?

REPORTER: They were using Signal to coordinate on sensitive materials, and --

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

REPORTER: With the Houthis.

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

REPORTER: Right.

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 -- you're telling me about it for the first time. Any --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[15:30:01]

ZELENY: So the president insisting he knew nothing about it. This -- the article had been out for a couple hours before he spoke there. So regardless of whether he did or he didn't, the reality is the White House is now doing a review of how this happened, even as members of both parties on Capitol Hill really sounding the alarm, how such a sensitive operation could have been discussed even on an encrypted channel.

That's what classified systems are for, and that's what the situation room is for, not to do it on your iPhone -- Max.

FOSTER: Jeff from the White House, thank you.

Greenland's prime minister calls a high level U.S. visit to the arctic island this week, quote, highly aggressive. But President Trump's framing the trip in another way. The White House says Second Lady Usha Vance will watch the Danish territories national dog sled race. The president said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio could also be part of the delegation.

The U.S. national security adviser is also expected to visit, according to a source. The trip comes as President Trump has repeatedly threatened to annex Greenland. Mr. Trump called the upcoming visit friendly, not a provocation.

President Trump supporters don't have a problem believing in him, but when it comes to his advisor Elon Musk, their thoughts are pretty different. Coming up, what people really think.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) FOSTER: We're turning to our top story tonight, a report of a major breach of U.S. national security involving a journalist being invited into a government group chat about bombing Yemen.

Various U.S. lawmakers have demanded accountability. Senate Republican John Cornyn described it as a huge screw up, and Democrats are calling for an investigation. Senator Mark Warner saying this administration is playing fast and loose with our nation's most classified information, and it makes all Americans less safe.

[15:35:04]

Our chief national security correspondent, Alex Marquardt, is in Washington.

I mean, you know this world very well. I mean, what's so shocking to you about this? Jeff was talking earlier about how these sorts of chats are meant to be had in other places, secure places.

ALEXANDER MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: I mean, it's really two things, but -- but it's stunning on so many different levels, Max. But -- but really, the actual information that was in there that was not used in those channels or put in those channels that that Jeff was -- was talking about, these are very strict processes and procedures that are carried over from administration to administration that this administrations national security officials decided to break altogether and go outside.

I mean, you would think that two hours before these bombs were launched at Yemen, that everybody and everything was in place, and that the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, wouldn't need to update everybody else on a Signal chat. But there he was doing that on the morning of March 15th.

I think the second most stunning thing is simply, how on earth did Jeffrey Goldberg get added to this group in the first place? I think we've all made mistakes in terms of who we're texting, but when you've got a group of people like that, 18 of the most senior national security officials in the country, someone might take a look at the participants in the conversation and ask who this person was, even if it's just someone being identified by their initials, as apparently was the case with -- with Jeffrey Goldberg.

So there's a big question there about who the others thought that he was. This was not someone who was added the day of these strikes, for example. This was a group that was set up four days prior to these strikes against the Houthis being carried out. Mike Waltz had connected with Goldberg directly and then invited him to this group, and Goldberg didn't engage. In fact, he says in this article, he didn't know if it was real.

Throughout the article, he talks about the people who are writing as Mike Waltz. You know, never quite believing that that who the people who are doing this, talking, this debating, this revealing of this extraordinary information were actually the players themselves. But we now know that it was. The White House has confirmed it. We did hear from the National Security Council. A spokesman for Mike

Waltz who started this text chain, saying that this does appear to be an authentic message chain. They're looking into why this inadvertent number of Jeffrey Goldberg was added to this chain, and then they try to spin it in a very interesting way that this actually shows the depth of the debate and conversation that goes into decisions like this. And that was one of the more interesting things. There was a give and take. There was some pushback.

J.D. Vance, the vice president, for example, saying he didn't think that they should go ahead with this at that time. Others saying, well, we don't need to do it right now. We can we can wait more time.

So that's kind of the secondary policy information that is also fascinating. But just how all this came together is extraordinary. And of course, now the question what will the ramifications be?

Max, you noted that quote from -- from Senator Warner, the top Democrat in the Senate Intelligence Committee.

There's a big, big hearing tomorrow on that committee. You can be sure that Senator Warner and others will be asking the top intelligence officials, what on Earth happened here -- Max.

FOSTER: We'll be following it. Alex, thank you so much.

U.S. stocks rallied based on reports that President Trump may be softening his stance on some tariffs. Right now, trading is up pretty significantly, as you can see the NASDAQ up more than 2 percent. So they've accepted that as a pretty good sign.

For more than a month, President Trump has been touting April the 2nd next Wednesday as a so-called liberation day, bringing reciprocal tariffs that match import tax, dollar for dollar. But President Trump has hinted now that his administration would allow for some flexibility, so not all countries would get the same tariffs, as it were.

CNN reporter Matt Egan is in New York.

I mean, it's a roller coaster for you explaining this to the world and the markets. But, you know, whenever there's a softening, it's seen as a really good sign, right?

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Yeah, that's absolutely right, Max.

Look, Wall Street is breathing a sigh of relief that perhaps liberation day won't be as bad as feared, right? That's what was indicated in those reports over the weekend, about April 2nd, and then backed up by the president today. He even said that he may give, quote, a lot of countries breaks with tariffs.

And so all of this, yes, has helped to brighten the mood on Wall Street. We're seeing U.S. stocks sharply higher. As you noted, the NASDAQ, more than 2 percent in the green. The Dow almost 600 points higher on the day, about 1.4 percent. And as you noted, every time a tariff threat is softened or dialed

back, we do see investors tend to celebrate. That's because Wall Street is worried that this trade war could slow growth, raise prices, or maybe do both.

[15:40:05]

But I would just note here that it's not like these looming tariffs have been canceled, right? They haven't. They just might not be as severe as investors had expected.

I mean, this would be like if you were told to brace for a category five hurricane. And then the meteorologist came out and said, actually, we think it's going to be a category two or category three. It's still a hurricane. It's just not as bad as you were thinking it was going to be.

And so the other thing to keep in mind is that Trump has already imposed a lot of tariffs, right. He's put tariffs on more than $1 trillion of U.S. goods. That's almost triple what was done during his entire first term. And we're not even in April yet. And there are these additional tariffs that still loom.

And even as investors were celebrating today, this possible more targeted approach from Trump on April 2nd, he hit them with another tariff threat. This brand new threat to put a 25 percent tariff on any country that buys oil from Venezuela. So, look, I don't think that this tariff roller coaster that were all on is over. There's going to be some more ups and downs.

And until there's real certainty and clarity, I think we're going to see more bumps in the stock market as well -- Max.

FOSTER: Okay, Matt, thank you for that.

New reporting showing today a growing gap between how supporters of President Trump view him and how they view his close advisor, Elon Musk. "The New York Times" noted, President Trump and Elon Musk took in the Division I wrestling championship in Philadelphia on Saturday, but some of Mr. Trump's supporters expressed complicated feelings about his billionaire adviser.

One supporter who said of Mr. Musk's role in the administration it's someone putting their hand in a cookie jar. They don't belong in. Musk's declining favorability is also taking a toll on Tesla's bottom line.

I want to bring in our CNN chief data analyst, Harry Enten, for more on this. I mean, everyone's fascinated, aren't they, by this relationship? And it's really hitting the numbers now.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yeah, it is. And I just want to say that there's no cookie jar that I have, Max, that you aren't welcome to. Okay. You could take any cookie you want. Sugar, chocolate chip, whatever you want. But if we're talking about the numbers here, lets just start off

talking about Tesla. All right. You know, there's been all these reports that people are giving back their Teslas. Maybe their bottom line is suffering.

And we're first starting to get some real numbers, at least here in the states on how Tesla is doing. And I want you to take a look at new U.S. Tesla car registrations from 2024 versus 2023. You see it here down 5 percent. That's no good. How about in January of 2025 versus January of 2024? Look at this, down even more down 11 percent.

And what's so interesting to note is that other electric vehicle carmakers have actually seen the number of registrations go up. So they're surging while Tesla is struggling. And the question is what exactly is going on here? Well, I think if you dig deeper into the numbers you can get an understanding.

So let's understand who electric vehicle car owners are in the United States. And I think this really puts it into perspective. Get this.

Just 20 percent of them are Republicans. The vast majority are on the center or the left. You see this here? Independence 42 percent, Democrats 38 percent.

So, all of a sudden, if you're aligning yourself with a Republican administration, as Elon Musk is, perhaps this is a sign that that is not a good line for the bottom line of Tesla. And again, when we look at Elon Musk's numbers, as you were talking about in the intro, how is he doing across the board?

Well, I think this says it all. Elon Musk's net favorable rating overall, the drop has been tremendous from where it was eight years ago. We're talking a drop from plus 24 points on the net favorable to minus 19 points.

But when you break it down by party, you can see why Elon Musk has put Tesla in such a difficult position. Among Republicans back in 2017, he was at plus 18 points, pretty good. Now in 2025, he's up to plus 51 points. But, of course, they're such a small part of the electric car market.

Look at Democrats. This is one of the biggest changes I have ever seen. In 2017, among Democrats, Elon Musk's net favorable rating plus 35 points. Look at where it is now in 2025, minus 91 points. That is a drop of, get this, 126 points on his net favorable rating.

No wonder Tesla is struggling. It is because Elon Musk has taken that part of the electric car market that is the majority, and basically given them the proverbial middle finger, and they hate it. While he has been very friendly to Republicans, but again, they are such a small part of the electric car market, no wonder Tesla is struggling. No wonder the stock is struggling. It is because, at least in large part, in my mind, Elon Musk is not viewed favorably by those who own an electric vehicle, Max.

FOSTER: Yeah, a lot of people worrying all over the world. I think if they've got a Tesla, what they're going to do with it as well, it's become a big talking point around the world.

ENTEN: It has.

FOSTER: Thank you so much.

ENTEN: Thank you, my friend.

FOSTER: Still to come, acclaimed French actor Gerard Depardieu is on trial for alleged sexual assault. We'll have the latest from Paris.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:48:07]

FOSTER: The sexual assault trial against French actor Gerard Depardieu is set to resume on Tuesday. The actor appeared in court today. The 76-year-old is accused of sexually assaulting two women on a movie set in 2021. He denies all the charges.

The trial has led to feminist protests against the actor. They say France's small movie industry makes it hard to complain against abuse in fear of retribution.

Here's CNN's Saskya Vandoorne with the very latest.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SASKYA VANDOORNE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He's France's best known actor now on trial, accused of sexual assault by two women who claimed Gerard Depardieu attacked them on a film set in 2021, according to the prosecutor's office.

Both women alleged that on separate occasions, the actor pinned them between his legs and touched their genitals, buttocks and chest over their clothes.

While Depardieu has denied the allegations, the case has reignited the #metoo movement stalled in France as prominent actresses supported men's freedom to pester and defended art.

Actress Judith Godreche says art is no excuse for crime.

JUDITH GODRECHE, ACTRESS: In this country. I feel that its not just the men who are the abuser who are trying to shut down the women, it's the society.

VANDOORNE: But now, a societal reckoning brought on by the Pelicot trial. Dominique Pelicot was found guilty of the drugging and mass rape of his then wife, Gisele Pelicot, in abuse that spanned nearly a decade. The case sparked a national discussion around sexual violence and consent.

MARINE TURCHI, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, MEDIAPART (through translator): The Depardieu and Pelicot cases have played an important role in raising public awareness and changing how we view certain behaviors, that they are not about seduction, but rather about power dynamics and domination.

[15:50:00]

It is now a collective issue, not just a women's problem.

VANDOORNE: The plight of household name Depardieu has gripped the nation.

EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (translated): I'm a great admirer of Depardieu. He makes France proud.

VANDOORNE: The president's defense over two years ago still sparking outrage today.

And this trial may not be Depardieu's last. Lawyers say he's been accused of assault by over a dozen other women and is embroiled in a separate case where he's accused of rape.

JEREMIE ASSOUS, LAWYER OF GERARD DEPARDIEU (through translator): These are nothing but slanderous accusations, each more serious than the last. So he's been deeply affected. But he will finally have the chance to defend himself in a setting where the principle of fairness is upheld, as for months, even years, he's been facing numerous accusations.

VANDOORNE: If convicted, Depardieu faces up to five years behind bars. A verdict is still months away. But in the court of public opinion, especially in the wake of the Pelicot rape trial, the pedestal Gerard Depardieu once stood on so proudly is already long gone, while the #metoo movement has been truly resuscitated.

Saskya Vandoorne, CNN, Paris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOSTER: Now, it may be the top rated show around the world on Netflix, but Andrew Tate says "Adolescence" is trash. Although in fairness, he admits he hasn't actually seen it. The show directly references Tate and the influence that his self-proclaimed misogyny has on teenage boys.

It becomes a global hit for Netflix. Tate then asks about it when he appeared at a court station on Monday -- a police station, rather -- with his brother Tristan in Romania, where they're facing charges of human trafficking and sexual exploitation of women.

Speaking off camera, he says the show is just propaganda.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW TATE, INFLUENCER: No, I haven't seen that trash. It sounds like another matrix psy-op from Netflix because all they ever do is lie. So I haven't seen that (EXPLETIVE DELETED). I don't watch garbage. I have important things to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP) FOSTER: "Adolescence" remains at number one in the Netflix charts, and has been the subject of questions in British parliament, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer backing calls to show it in schools. It really is an incredible show.

More after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: Finally, if you are hoping to visit Mount Fuji, it's about to get a bit trickier for you. Japanese officials are worried the mountain is becoming overcrowded and covered in litter. So now there'll be a limit of 4,000 visitors per day, with each of them paying a $27 permit fee, double the price from last year.

[15:55:06]

There'll also be new restrictions on when you can climb the mountain. That's after some visitors tried to climb it without any supplies and only wearing flip flops, would you believe, they ended up needing medical attention.

Now, a new pairing for Tiger Woods. He confirmed on social media that he's in a relationship with Vanessa Trump, former daughter in law of President Trump. Woods posted love is in the air and life is better with you by my side. She was married to Donald Trump Jr. and had recently been seen with woods at a tournament he hosts. Woods ruptured his Achilles tendon earlier this year, ruling him out of the Masters next month.

Thanks for joining me here on CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Max Foster.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" with Richard is up next.