Return to Transcripts main page

Erin Burnett Outfront

Iran Preparing For Invasion; Democrats Fired Up; Jury Finds Meta And YouTube Negligent, Designed To Be Addictive. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired March 25, 2026 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:26]

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:

The breaking news, Iran bracing for a potential American ground invasion.

Sources are telling CNN tonight the Kharg Island is now riddled with mines, more troops and missile systems heading to the island to defend as thousands of U.S. troops are getting closer to the region tonight.

Also breaking, Democrats fired up tonight.

I'm going to speak to the winner of the Florida special election, who will now represent Mar-a-Lago, Democrat Emily Gregory. She says she welcomes a conversation with Trump. Have they spoken yet?

And a landmark ruling tonight against Meta and YouTube. Could it change social media finally, as we know it?

A former Meta employee turned whistleblower, star witness in this trial, is our guest.

Let's go OUTFRONT.

(MUSIC)

BURNETT: And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.

And OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news -- Iran laying traps ahead of a potential American ground invasion. So, here's what sources are telling CNN tonight. They say Iran is actively preparing for an invasion of Kharg Island. That is that eight square mile island at the top of the Persian Gulf, 20 miles off the coast of Iran that exports nearly 20 percent of the country's oil.

So, obviously, it's essential for Iran, an artery. It's an island, in fact, that Trump has long talked about invading. Now, the traps that we understand that are being put there. Okay, from CNNs reporting, anti-personnel and anti-armor mines, we understand, placed around the island.

And Tehran also apparently quickly moving a large number of actual troops and air defenses to this island. Its crown jewel and its oil industry. So far, we understand that includes shoulder fired surface to air guided missile systems as well. Now, all of these things could result clearly could result in a large number of U.S. casualties if U.S. ground forces invade, according to U.S. officials and military experts and some in Trump's inner circle are sounding the alarm, warning him that seizing that island would not resolve the issues related to the Strait of Hormuz. Of course, south of there, the artery of 20 percent of the world's oil supply, which of course is essentially at a standstill.

This massive military buildup comes as thousands of American troops are now making their way to the Middle East. Okay, when you go through this, it's a lot. They're putting a lot in there. Units that specialize in high stakes, ship to shore operations. We've got the USS Tripoli, the 11th MEU, marine expeditionary unit, and the boxer amphibious ready group.

And sources also tell CNN that 1,000 U.S. soldiers with the Army's 82nd Airborne are also expected to deploy any day now. They were issued official orders just yesterday, and they would join an operation that, according to CENTCOM, just took out its 10th thousand, 10,000, I'm sorry, Iranian target over the past few hours.

CENTCOM claims to have destroyed 92 percent of the Iranian naval vessels, although I will say it was in the first few days of the war that Trump said every single one of them was on the floor of the sea, and it had been obliterated. They're now saying there are still some left.

As for Kharg Island itself, Trump has been obsessed with that one island for 28 years. Go back to 1988. Donald Trump, in an interview, said, I'd be harsh on Iran. They've been beating us psychologically, making us look a bunch of fools. One bullet shot at one of our mentorships, and id do a number on Kharg Island. I'd go in and take it.

Well, there's a lot of things in Trump's mind that are front and center when it goes back to the 1980s, and so, it's important to mention the Kharg Island was front and center in 1988 for him. And as the war that he has started with Iran enters its 26th day, the message from the White House tonight is not peaceful.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: President Trump does not bluff, and he is prepared to unleash hell.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: And that's the sort of rhetoric we've heard from the press secretary, from the president, from the defense secretary again and again.

Jeremy Diamond is OUTFRONT, live in Tel Aviv to begin our coverage.

So, Jeremy, obviously, Israel is the United States' partner in this war. And, they see the risks, obviously, in some ways very differently than the United States. What about when it comes to a, a ground invasion of Kharg Island? How do they see it?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, there's no question that the Israelis, like a number of military experts, understand that any potential U.S. military invasion of Kharg Island would carry tremendous risks for U.S. personnel who would be involved.

One Israeli source telling us that there is concern that should U.S. Marines take control of Kharg Island, that Iran could immediately retaliate using a variety of weapons at its disposal, including shoulder fired missiles and drones. Keep in mind that Kharg island is only about 20 miles away from the Iranian mainland.

[19:05:04]

And this source also said that the hope is that they won't take that risk and that they will instead fire at the oil fields, but that there's simply no way to know.

And this comes, of course, as Israeli officials are monitoring very closely to see which track President Trump is going to follow here. Is he going to follow the military track as he is building up this force of marines and airborne 82nd airborne troops as well? Or is he going to pursue this diplomatic track that could potentially see U.S. and Iranian officials in Pakistan as early as this weekend to discuss a way out of a potential escalation of this war.

I was speaking to an Israeli official tonight who made clear to me that Israelis are prepared for all of the potential scenarios that President Trump is considering at this moment. They're clearly letting the United States stay in the drivers' seat here as President Trump considers next steps. But there's no question that they feel like they haven't yet achieved all of their objectives. And they would very much like to continue this military campaign. But they are open to a diplomatic pathway if and that's a big if, if those objectives can be achieved at the negotiating table as well, Erin.

BURNETT: All right, Jeremy, thank you very much, in Tel Aviv tonight.

And everyone's here with me.

Colonel Leighton, let me just start with you. These traps that CNN is reporting are being laid around -- various types of mines, surface to air shoulder-fired missiles, as well as ground troops going on to Kharg, which obviously had a significant military infrastructure to begin with, right? Because of its importance, you know?

So when you hear all of that, what does that do to what I know you already had pointed out was a very dangerous operation if the U.S. were to seize this island.

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yeah, absolutely, Erin.

And what it points out to me is that this is going to be basically a hornet's nest. If you go in there and the Iranians have the defenses that we think they have, you're going to see not only things like tank traps, the shoulder fired missiles that you mentioned, but also things like IEDs.

And we have to remember that the Iranians have been masters of the IED, the improvised explosive device. They did it during the Iraq war. They're responsible for at least 603 American military deaths in Iraq during that Second Iraq War. And they would use similar tactics for Kharg Island.

The difference is, of course, they've got a much smaller space to work in about eight square miles that they would be working in there, and that could also lend itself to an air campaign that would basically obliterate a lot of the Iranian defenders. But there's still some major difficulties with an operation like this, and it would require a really concerted effort at this point.

BURNETT: Yeah. And I guess and then there's also just the actual logistics of it, right? You're either flying in and dropping people in or you're sailing through water that so far, U.S. ships have not deemed it safe to even sail through because you got to get up there, right?

I mean, just the basic, basic geography, right? Seth, when you look at that, though U.S. strikes so far on islands, including Kharg, where right there -- there has been strikes. You've noticed something really significant, okay? Also, just basic logistics here, runways.

SETH JONES, PRESIDENT, DEFENSE & SECURITY DEPARTMENT, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Yeah. So there are a number of islands right around the elbow of the strait of Hormuz, where just this week, the U.S. Has been striking numerous targets. These are the Nasirzadeh islands like Abu Musa, for example, where the U.S. Has been striking bunkers, underground storage facilities, any tanker or naval vessel that were to come through the Strait of Hormuz would go right by these islands.

One of the things that the U.S. Has left out so far in the targeting, based on the satellite imagery analysis, is hitting the runways. So, they're landable right now. You can land aircraft on them right now, even though much of those islands have been decimated, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard facilities in those islands, does raise some interesting questions about why you're leaving --

BURNETT: I mean, obviously, what aircraft you're wanting to land obviously would be U.S. aircraft. I mean, that would -- that's the clear --

JONES: Would be one -- one possibility.

BURNETT: All right. So, okay, Richard, to that point, when you look at where Trump's mindset is and nobody knows really what goes on in his mind, right? But there are certain things when you look at his behavior that are consistent over a long period of time, okay? The fact that he talked about Kharg Island specifically by name in 1988, saying I'd go in and take it, the fact that that's been on his mind for a long time is notable thing.

RICHARD QUEST, CNN ANCHOR, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Oh, it's more than notable. The man becomes obsessed with these things that go back 30, 40 years. Tariffs is the clearest example of that.

BURNETT: Yeah.

QUEST: You and I know he's been banging on about tariffs since -- since his early days in New York. So, the fact that he's focused on Kharg Island back in 1988 tells me that he's well and truly still obsessed by it. Now, if he can in some way do what he wishes to do.

The problem is the economic effects of this would be quite devastating. Kharg Island is 400 miles away from the strait, by the way. So, the moment you attack Kharg Island, you essentially completely cut off the strait. I mean, it just becomes a no go zone for any form of shipping for the foreseeable.

And China, of course, gets whatever oil it is still getting from Iran, from Kharg Island the three or four ships or whatever it is that get out and still go to China, go that way. So, we are looking at a massive deterioration in economic effect. If he goes ahead with this.

BURNETT: There's also, I would just say knowing -- I've been talking to someone who runs tankers, there's several of them that have been now for one month as of this weekend, stuck, okay, somewhere. And some of them, you know, there was at the point, well, we have a month before we need to worry about food supplies.

Well, guess what? It's a month on Saturday. There's a lot of ships up there. I mean, there is a lot to think about here just on the microeconomic level, colonel, as in addition to, of course, the vast macroeconomic significance here.

But, you know, we also understand this 10,000 targets that came out. So, on the one hand, its ground troops are coming in and on the other hand, it's well, the war is won and we've hit 10,000 targets.

But so, I guess the question is what value those targets. You know, they say they've taken out the ballistic missile capacity, but there are some missiles that we believe and know them to have that they have not yet used. So, either those have been destroyed or they're still successfully hidden. We don't know.

LEIGHTON: Yeah, that's -- and that's the big unknown when it comes to Iran, Erin. And when you look at the history of the way the Iranians have developed their defense industries and also their military capacity and capabilities, what they've done is they've basically developed a system where they can hide a lot of stuff. They've built tunnels that we know exist, and not just for the nuclear things.

They've built them for their missiles. They've built them for their speedboats. They've built them for their mines and for other parts of their Iranian Revolutionary Guard and defense establishment.

So, what this really means is that there's a lot that they've got that is hidden out there. And the likelihood is extremely high that they still have things within their pandoras box that they can open up.

BURNETT: And they can use. And that raises questions for the troops as well.

I'm also curious, Seth, and I've said this before, but you know, when Putin put those troops on the border in Ukraine, there were some in the U.S. government that said from the beginning he was going to do it. But there were a lot of people who thought it was all a leverage tactic. Well, guess what? When you put that many troops there and you spend that much money, you do it.

When Trump put all that material and fighter jets in the Middle East, he did it. Now he's putting all these ground troops in the Middle East. It would seem he plans to do it.

I mean, what are what are you hearing in terms of the possibility that this isn't actually an intent to go in?

JONES: Well, Erin, I'm hearing a few things. One is I don't think the -- despite what's been said, the negotiations are -- don't appear to be actually that successful in getting us close to any kind of negotiation.

BURNETT: Right. And the Iranians, I mean, there's not even -- they're arguing on whether they're even negotiating.

JONES: Exactly.

BURNETT: That's -- yeah.

JONES: So, which leaves us then with how are you going to put pressure on the Iranians? The Kharg Island doesn't actually relieve the Strait of Hormuz problem. It actually probably makes it worse. It is a potential political -- I mean, you may want to do it if you want to have a stranglehold over a very important part of the Iranian economy, and to use that as a bargaining chip in negotiations to open up the Strait of Hormuz.

Now, there are going to be risks involved. By the way, we did some math on the anti-ship cruise missiles that Iran could shoot either at Kharg Island or at the islands in the --

BURNETT: On the elbow of the strait.

JONES: Yeah. Like Abu Musa, it will take for the subsonic missiles to get from Iran itself to those islands, if there were U.S. forces about a minute and about 10 seconds for the supersonic anti-ship cruise missile.

BURNETT: That's how much time, by the way, were just saying that's how much time American soldiers, physical human, would have to have to respond.

JONES: Ten seconds for the supersonic.

BURNETT: Ten seconds.

LEIGHTON: A really short warning time. And that is going to be a bit -- BURNETT: That sounds like a lot of people could die.

LEIGHTON: Yeah, absolutely. No question about it. And that's why we have to really be careful with this whole thing. Because when you go into an operation like this, you know, when Trump was looking at this in 1988, looking at Kharg Island, that was really at the tail end of the Iran-Iraq war, and that was a time when Kharg was being pounded by the Iraqis. But they still were able to bring it back online after a lot of fits and starts, the Iranians were.

So, this is, you know, a country that were talking about here, Iran, that is really capable of surviving a lot of things. And if we're going to go after them, we need a much better strategy.

BURNETT: And there is another narrow channel that if -- if some of this were to transpire, that Iran also could effectively possibly close.

QUEST: The whole area. Absolutely. Youve got these -- there's an enormous number of ways in which the U.S. is not the master of the final outcome. Yes, you can bomb the out of everything but Iran -- you can't do it unilaterally coming -- bringing it to an end. Iran has many levers that it can pull.

[19:15:01]

On the global economy that will really -- look, just tonight, Philippines has closed has declared a national emergency on fuel. Large parts of Asia are going to one day off a week because of shortage.

BURNETT: Work from home --

QUEST: And airlines are cutting back routes. How much more damage do you want to do is basically what people are now starting to say? And Kharg Island would put it on steroids if you decided to attack.

BURNETT: Yeah, yeah, we've talked about the, quote/unquote, escalation ladder, which took several rungs up.

All right. Thank you all very much.

And next, breaking news, two of the largest tech companies found liable in a landmark social media addiction trial tonight. Will this change? Finally, social media as we know it, a whistleblower who testified in that case was central to it is our guest.

And the Air Canada jet that slammed into the fire truck is now on the move. We're learning new details tonight about the injured, some of whom are still, still in hospital. And I'll talk to the Democrat who just scored that major upset in Trump's hometown, flipping a seat in a district Trump won by 11 points in 2024. So, do all these special election wins actually mean for Democrats, coast to coast?

Harry Enten here to tell us something we don't know.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:20:44]

BURNETT: Breaking news Democrats on the verge of a second upset in Trump territory tonight. Right now, ballots are being counted in an extremely tight Florida state Senate special election race. Democrat Brian Nathan, whom I'll speak to in a moment for his first national television interview, has a slight lead against the Republican Josie Tomkow. It's a district that Republicans won by 10 percentage points four years ago.

And it comes as Democrats are celebrating a major win in President Trump's own backyard in Florida. Democrat Emily Gregory, who spoke to us last night as she was driving to her watch party. That was just a few minutes, literally before CNN projected her to be the winner. You remember seeing her here last night? She's going to join us in a moment as well. She won that district. It includes Mar-a-Lago beating the Trump-backed Republican Jon Maples in a district that Trump won by 11 points in 2024.

So, this has made Democrats around the country ecstatic, right? Florida state, that many had thought it really turned red. And now you're seeing all of this percolating up. The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee says, quote, "If Mar-a-Lago was vulnerable, imagine what's possible this November."

And Brian Nathan and Emily Gregory are both OUTFRONT.

Representative-elect Gregory, let me just start with you, though, because it was 24 hours ago, you and I were talking. You were driving to your watch party, and we were able to tell you, you were up by a little bit, but it was by no means clear if you were going to win or not, right? And you were driving there, I think you were in the back seat of the car.

Today, the House minority leader, Kim Jeffries, is writing about you and he writes, Emily, she won the district that includes Mar-a-Lago or "Democrats flipped a state house seat in palm beach that Trump won by 11 points in 2024. Mar-a-Lago will now be represented by Emily Gregory, a strong Democratic voice. We will crush House Republicans in November if DeSantis tries to gerrymander the Florida congressional map."

So, you know, yesterday morning, you were one person, and today, you're the same person. But a lot of people know who you are. How does it feel to be the center of the political conversation today?

EMILY GREGORY (D), FLORIDA STATE HOUSE REP-ELECT: Oh, Erin, so weird. Like, I've been saying, like, as the days worn on, like, aren't people tired of hearing me yap yet? Like, its been so funny to see all of this interest, but it's so exciting. I think, you know, that state legislature races don't get a lot of attention. And what happens in the state houses is so impactful in people's lives. So, let's talk about it.

BURNETT: So, you know, it's interesting. Joe Rogan, of course, the podcaster, he obviously supported Donald Trump in the 2024 election. And Emily, as you and I know, him and the kind of, you know, those final days coming in on behalf of Trump was possibly very significant for Trump's victory.

And certainly among, you know, certain very loyal viewers of Joe Rogan. But Joe Rogan is now suggesting that Democrats were actually tougher than Trump on illegal immigration. Let me just play for you what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE ROGAN, HOST, THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE: We've played clips of Hillary Clinton from 2008, and she's more MAGA than MAGA. I know you know her -- her take on the border was like hardcore. It was hardcore. If you've been convicted of a crime, get out. You know, if you stay here, pay a stiff penalty and you have to get in line and you have to learn English and everybody cheers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.

ROGAN: Like that is a hardcore right wing 2026 perspective.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Obama did it too in 2012.

ROGAN: Absolutely. And Obama deported more people than Trump did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, exactly.

ROGAN: Yeah

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: So, I play that for you, Emily, because Joe Rogan obviously has recently repeatedly criticized Trump on a whole bunch of issues. That's just, you know, one of them. But it's one of several. And he is far from the only Trump supporter, very vocal Trump supporter to have done so.

I mean, when you look at your race and I know you ran on a lot of issues that matter locally, it wasn't about Trump. But do you think that there are people in your district when you look at the dramatic swing, right, that went from voting for Trump and now voting for you, are there a lot of people who have a case of buyer's remorse, do you think?

GREGORY: I honestly am not. I can't speak really intelligently on this because I haven't asked them, really, their feelings on, voting for Trump if they did vote for Trump, I can tell you my opponent made immigration front and center.

[19:25:01]

And I -- I mean, he didn't win. So it's an indicator that it wasn't the primary issue.

And I think what you teased and what the clip that played is exactly right is that Democrats have been strong on crime and that Obama and Biden deported more of the criminal -- of anyone with a criminal record. And now we are deporting people without criminal records. And I think a lot of us are having a reckoning about that, about is that what we want? Is that who we want to be?

BURNETT: So last night you told me you were open to talking to President Trump because he's now one of your constituents, right? Has there been any outreach from him or his campaign? Have you heard anything since you won?

GREGORY: No, I learned over the course of the day that a lot of journalists do have his phone number. I don't, I would be I would welcome a conversation, but, no, I have not talked to the president, but happy to.

BURNETT: It's -- I like how you say a lot of journalists have his phone number. Yeah. That's been a thing recently.

All right. I wanted to show something here because last night we briefly talked about just the moment that we're in and you're a military family and all of these troops deploying to the Middle East and a lot of American lives are on the line. You posted a video three months ago of your husband Andrew's name. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. A moment that I know the incredible pride that you and your children felt in that moment.

He's obviously active duty service member, and you are now going to the Florida state house. That's also your husband. You're a wife. I mean, how concerned are you? How worried are you about what's going to happen here and, and how the White House is going about it, right? That they so far have done this without congressional approval before deploying U.S. Troops?

GREGORY: Well, I'll say first that I love the Andrew's shoutout. He is -- he's the MVP of this campaign. There is no Emily Gregory for state house without my husband stepping up and taking over primary caregiving duties. And oh, gosh, I love all of this. This is so exciting for him on national television.

Yeah, we were very nervous. We -- he's in the reserves. He is not active duty any longer. But we are Catholic and church going and we are praying for all of our troops that are in harm's way.

And we -- we are fearful of another endless war. We are as a family. This is not at the state legislature. This is my personal experience and my personal story.

But I mean, we spent our first year of courtship. He was in Afghanistan in off, you know, behind the wire in Kandahar.

So, we know what that looks like and we know what service looks like and we know what service and, and war looks like. And it's very scary. It's very real. And anytime you put American lives in danger, you should be very, very thoughtful and absolutely be able to explain to the American people why you were doing so.

BURNETT: Well, Emily, thank you very much. I'm so glad to have the chance to speak to you again. So, thank you.

GREGORY: Thanks for having me. This is great.

BURNETT: All right. So that's Emily Gregory and she's won. She's going to the Florida state house.

Brian Nathan is the Democrat currently in the lead in another extremely close Florida senate race. If he wins, that would be the second major upset in the state after Emily. He's OUTFRONT for his first national television interview after last night's special election.

So, Brian, I appreciate speaking to you.

You know, obviously you hear Emily's story and you right now are ahead by a razor thin margin. As I said, they're still counting votes. They're putting up on the board, though you are ahead. Youve got 40,212 votes and you are 408 points -- votes, sorry, ahead.

Are you confident you won at this point?

BRIAN NATHAN (D), FLORIDA STATE SENATE CANDIDATE: Absolutely. I mean, like you said, 408 votes. We're going through ballot curing right now. This race is over.

And I'm extremely pleased with everything we did in this race. It was amazing. The volunteers, everybody that came out knocked doors with me for the last 224 days. I couldn't have asked for a better race.

BURNETT: Now, I know you said your opponent, Josie Tomkow, called you to concede. What exactly did she say to you?

NATHAN: She told me she conceded, congratulated me and wished me well when I go up to the Senate.

BURNETT: That's gracious. I'm glad to hear it. That's how things should go.

NATHAN: Yeah, that's how it should go when -- in American politics.

Your camp -- the longtime Republican and former aide to VP Mike Pence, Marc Short, was speaking the other day. And he specifically addressed your race and other special election victories by Democrats, he called it, and I, quote, "a nine-alarm fire for the GOP heading into midterms."

That was his post. How do you see it? Do you agree with him that midterms are a nine-alarm fire for Republicans?

[19:30:04]

NATHAN: I'll let him choose his own verbiage for that. But this is definitely -- needs to be a wake-up call for everybody all across the country, not just here in Florida. We have voters down here, left, right, center Republicans, Democrats, NPAs or independents that came out that specifically came up and talked to me and said, I voted for you because you're talking about the issues that matter to me, that matter to my family.

This race wasn't about the culture war issues that we often see coming out of Tallahassee. It's all about affordability. What does it take to feed a family to house a family in Tampa Bay right now? And that's what we focus this campaign on. And the voters responded.

BURNETT: All right. Well, Brian, I appreciate your time. And I will say when you mentioned affordability, that's what Emily also talked about last night, right front and center, affordability, affordability, affordability. Obviously, it resonated.

You know, when you're -- if you're formally declared the victor here soon, right? You're going to flip a district that Trump had won by what, 10, 12 points as she did? These are very significant moves.

And thank you so much, Brian, for being with us. I really appreciate your taking the time and doing this interview.

And now I'm here with Harry Enten, who's here to tell us something else that we don't know.

And, Harry, you know, you hear Emily and Brian.

HARRY ENTEN, CN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yeah.

BURNETT: Okay. And you know, Florida, by the way, a state that used to be purple.

ENTEN: Purple.

BURNETT: And really had really become more red in recent years.

ENTEN: Very red.

BURNETT: Okay. Very red. And these, these are double digit flips, but they are not happening in isolation. So how widespread is it?

ENTEN: They are not happening in isolation, Erin. You know, we spoke about it last night, and I just want to give you an indication okay, Dems flipping seats in special elections 2025, 2026. You know, you mentioned down here in Florida, you see the blue here.

But look at this. It's in the northeast as well, right? It's New Hampshire, it's Pennsylvania, it's in the Midwest, it's Iowa.

You talk about other southern states, Georgia. Then you go Mississippi, Arkansas, which, of course, hasn't been one on the for Democrats on the presidential level since 1996. Weve seen a seat there. And of course, there was that Texas state senate district as well. We are seeing flips across the board. And when you tally it all up, Erin, what are we talking about? We are talking about if in fact your last guest is victorious, Democrats have flipped 12 -- 12 different special elections. They have flipped seats, and the Republicans have flipped a grand total of zero.

BURNETT: All right. Now, there you go. Next time you have a baker's dozen. Okay.

So, what does it mean for Democrats, though, in the midterm elections?

ENTEN: Okay. So, this is not happening in isolation. It's not happening in one state. Its happening across the map. But what are we looking at as well? Well, let's take a look at House Democrats polling, okay, versus Kamala Harris in 2024. How much are they outperforming her?

We'll look in the Northeast again. In New York, they're outperforming her by eight points. How about in Pennsylvania, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania? Again by eight points.

We mentioned Texas. Right. How are House Democrats the U.S. House outperforming Kamala Harris? Fourteen points.

And then even in California, which is of course such a deep blue state, even there, they're outperforming Kamala Harris by six points. And of course --

BURNETT: Deep blue and her state.

ENTEN: Right. Exactly right. And they're outperforming her there by six points. And of course, they have that redistricting that is going to be occurring because they passed that ballot measure. And so, I think that Democrats will really be able to extend their gains in deep blue states, red states and a key swing state in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania as well.

BURNETT: All right. So, tell me something else I don't know.

ENTEN: Okay. I will tell you something else you don't know. What are some elections that we're looking forward to in the next month? Okay. How about Wisconsin Supreme Court? Liberals there, Democrats, they're hoping to flip a seat there. They, of course, have gained control. That's oftentimes a telltale sign.

There's that Georgia 14th district, right. That was, of course, Marjorie Taylor Greene seat. How close can Democrats come there? They outperformed in the primary. Can they do so in the general?

And then in New Jersey 11th, Mikie Sherrill district, a very liberal Democrat won that primary. But let's see if she can win there and even extend upon Kamala Harris's advantage in that -- in that district. If they are, that tells you that it doesn't matter. Liberal, moderate, conservative Democrats are looking good towards November.

BURNETT: All right. Harry Enten, thank you.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BURNETT: And next, a jury finding Instagram and YouTube were designed to be addictive to kids. It's a stunning thing to say. This was found in a court. A whistleblower who turned on his former employer, Meta, is OUTFRONT. And betting on Trump's war. We are reporting one anonymous trader made nearly $1 million by predicting the exact timing of Trump's initial strikes on Iran. It smells funny, doesn't it? Is it insider trading?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:38:38]

BURNETT: Breaking news, a landmark ruling that could change social media as we know it. Meta and YouTube found liable by a jury in California of intentionally addicting a young woman to their platforms and injuring her mental health. It comes a day after a New Mexico jury found liable for failing to protect children from sexual predators. Former Meta employee turned whistleblower named Arturo Bejar testified against the company in both trials, claiming that he warned meta executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, about the dangers that Instagram was posing to young children, including his own daughter. Those warnings went ignored.

OUTFRONT now is Arturo Bejar.

And, Arturo, I appreciate your time. I mean, this is -- this is obviously a hugely significant day. Two different states and two very significant verdicts. You testified in both the trials, and both of them found your former employer liable.

How significant are these rulings today?

ARTURO BEJAR, FORMER FACEBOOK ENGINEERING DIRECTOR TURNED WHISTLEBLOWER: Oh, I think these are going to be the verdicts that are heard across the world. It's amazing to be here in the U.S. where it's the one level playing field where these companies with trillions of dollars of budgets and PR and all these things, stand in front of 12 people who care, who presented with the facts, found them to be addicting children and putting them in harm's way.

[19:40:01]

And so, I hope that empowers and energizes any other person in the world who's working to make this better. And there's a lot of them.

BURNETT: So, I mentioned that this was personal for you. You warned top Meta executives, and that included Mark Zuckerberg about the experience experiences when you were working there.

I mean, this was personal, right? You had a 14-year-old daughter and what she was subject to on Instagram. So, you approached them, you shared this with them. You warned them. And those warnings you said were ignored.

You know, tell me about that. I mean, what put your daughter in danger and what was their response when you told them, and it was about their product?

BEJAR: Yeah. When my daughter was 14, she asked if she could go on. I did it very thoughtfully. We spoke about it regularly and soon she started to get unwanted sexual advances from strangers. The horrible misogyny, because she cares about cars and people attacking her and her body.

And for me, the most important thing was because I used to be the person responsible for safety and security. I knew that if my daughter was experiencing, millions of kids were experiencing it as well. And that was the research I did at Instagram that found that one in eight kids get unwanted sexual advances. One in five feel worse about themselves.

All the harms that we know as parents and we see are happening at staggering rates. So, it took to Mark Zuckerberg these numbers saying 13- to 15-year-olds, one in five, one in three, all experiencing this awful issues that you can prevent. I know how you can prevent this. And he didn't even reply to the message.

BURNETT: Wow. All right. Well, we reached out to Meta and asked for a comment, you know, on the verdict and they said, "We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."

That last line obviously being very crucial.

What do you say to that?

BEJAR: I think what we have is a record of putting teens in harm's way and ignoring or dismissing the parents who have lost children on these products, the parents that know that their kids are experiencing this harm. Every kid that is experiencing harm, you will notice that the response to that is always, oh, that's not an issue. It's not real. It doesn't happen to most kids.

And tell me one place in this society to whom we entrust our kids, that if the kid comes back and experiences any of these awful things, if the place goes like, no, that's not what happens to most kids here. It's like the most disingenuous and gaslighting of answers, right?

And so, they keep demonstrating by each of their choices and actions that we cannot trust them with our kids because the responsible entity would be. Yeah, of course, we understand that there's addiction and here's ten things that we're doing to make it better.

BURNETT: And Arturo is the reason or what do you think the reason was that they -- that they answered that they say, well, it's not really a problem and that they did not. You say respond to your -- that Mark didn't respond to your email that you said. I mean, is it because they see that the kids, they make money on having kids as customers and anything that would put more restrictions around that is a revenue loss. Is it that simple?

BEJAR: It's -- that's part of it for sure. The other part of it is competing at any cost with anybody else that might take over the kids. And so, the moment that TikTok showed up, they pushed out reels, tens of thousands of engineers building infrastructure, 100 engineers trying to make it better, right?

The safety is not a priority in the way that they act. It's more important to compete. It's more important to secure kids. It's more important to create something that is designed to capture as much time and attention as possible of young people.

And of course, if that's the design, of course, it's that's the priority. You know, there's going to be kids that get addicted. I mean, how could they not be the way these things are designed?

BURNETT: Well, I mean, how many adults aren't addicted? I mean, I think, again, this is one of those things that the reality of it is, is we all know there's a problem across society with these things.

Arturo, thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

BEJAR: No, thank you very much for having me and for giving voice to these issues. It makes such a difference.

BURNETT: All right. Well, next, we're going to be talking about what's paying off with Trump's war with Iran. One anonymous trader. It's paying off big time. He predicted the timing of Trump's strikes in Iran. So amazingly, a windfall, massive windfall that is sparking allegations of insider trading.

And new details about some of the injured from the deadly crash at LaGuardia Airport in New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:49:37]

BURNETT: New tonight, massive bets on Trump's war with Iran, raising questions of insider trading, exclusive CNN reporting revealing that one anonymous trader has made nearly $1 million on the prediction market platform Polymarket, with bets correctly predicting the timing of U.S. And Israeli military actions against Iran since 2024, according to an analysis shared with CNN.

One trade predicted the U.S. would strike Iran by March 1st, netted more than $25,000 in profit.

[19:50:04]

Another predicted Israel would strike an Iranian nuclear facility by July of last year. That was $91,000.

Two separate trades predicting Israeli military action on Iran before July of last year, $135,000 and other well-timed trades are out there as well about oil futures made just before Trump delayed strikes on Iran's power plants, just before he was doing it, 48 hours. And all of a sudden, he didn't. And guess what? Somebody got that right.

And that is leading to obvious questions about insider trading.

Senator Chris Murphy, the Democrat, tweeting, quote, "Who was it? Trump, a family member, a White House staffer. This is corruption, mind-blowing corruption."

There's no evidence that Trump himself knew about the trades. And the White House is pushing back on any suggestion of insider trading, they told "Axios" in part, quote, "any implication that administration officials are engaged in such activity is without -- without evidence is baseless."

Tech stocks analysts, A.I. analyst Dan Ives is OUTFRONT.

So, Dan, you know, by the way, it's -- this is also true with tariff decisions, you know, which go up and down and all over the place. And somehow right before everyone, there are people making money. But in this case, specifically with Iran, one person, won 93 percent of their five figure bets about Iran on Polymarket, 93 percent win rate, predicting military actions, multiple of them hours before it happened.

What do you make of it?

DAN IVES, TECH STOCKS ANALYST: Well, it's been a concern. You've seen concern in the market because this is a huge market. I mean, we're talking about 60 billion in terms of prediction markets. And it could be in the hundreds of billions as you go into the coming years, the regulatory framework is what's going to be a focus here in terms of worries about trades and whether its worries about insider trading.

You see some of the congressional bills that are being floated, you know, SEC Chair Paul Atkins has talked about it. This is not going away and it's going to have to be curtailed one way or another.

BURNETT: Well, yeah, because then anybody who gets inside information, if you can do it anonymously, you can go on and profit from it, right? Especially if there's no one to catch you. I mean, that's the point. Polymarket bets and fascinating when you say it's a $60 billion market. I know that's other markets than Polymarket, but that's sort of the most well-known one, right?

The bets there are anonymous. So, you can't just publicly trace it back and say, oh, it was Dan Ives who placed this bet, right?

And another thing about these bets, as far as I understand it, and again, there's ones I said on various things of Trump's policy tariffs and other. But on this Iran issue, they were made on the Polymarket international site. So, U.S. regulators really can't see that.

I mean, do you think were ever going to find out who this was? Because I mean, when you look at it, it seems pretty obvious this is shady. And you know, if it ends up really being shady, is it possible whoever it is just gets away with it?

IVES: Yeah. Well, I mean, obviously there's, you know, there's a lot of gray areas in this market. CFTC ultimately is the one that probably looks at this, you know, but look, its a red flag that raises the broader question that you'll see in congressional bills.

And I think the platforms like Kalshi, Polymarket, they're trying to do some self-regulation, do some policies, but ultimately insider trading laws in D.C., whether it's on stocks or prediction markets, I think that's where this is going.

And this is definitely like a straw that broke the camel's back in terms of more am I looking at it in the 202 area code?

BURNETT: Well, yeah. And I guess just the final question is, you know, it used to be we lived in a world where U.S. regulators had a lot of power. But now if you can take all of this value and stick it and have it be done overseas, where U.S. regulators can't reach essentially, just maybe nothing could be done about it?

IVES: Well, I think look, I think SEC Chair Paul Atkins will look at it. You know you look at, you know, Southern District, Jay Clayton, who has such experience in the markets. You know, I'm sure that's something that will definitely be a focus. Look, this is -- this issue is going to get bigger and bigger just given the bets and just how big the markets are. But you know, it's definitely just the first step in what's going to be, I think a longer book.

BURNETT: All right. Well, for now, whoever did those trades, if they weren't above board, obviously, made a lot of money. And we don't know who it is.

Thank you very much, Dan Ives. I appreciate it.

And next cruise now moving the Air Canada jet that slammed into a fire truck at LaGuardia. As we're learning new details tonight about that crash.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:59:02]

BURNETT: OUTFRONT tonight, new details in the deadly crash at LaGuardia airport in New York. The Air Canada jet that slammed into a fire truck Sunday night is now off the runway, headed to a hangar. This is the video here of the wreckage being moved from the tarmac just a bit ago here, crews had to cruise, had to flip the fire truck to its upright position, and then they were able to remove that as well.

Air Canada revealing tonight that of the dozens of passengers and crew injured in the crash, four remain hospitalized tonight. So, four are still hospitalized days later. The two pilots were killed.

The NTSB's latest findings reveal technology issues may have contributed to the tragedy. They're saying the fire truck didn't have a transponder, which they say likely limited air traffic controllers ability to track it. And the airports ground radar system did not issue an alert warning the runway was unsafe to enter.

Now, aviation officials say the runway where this happened will likely be closed until Friday morning. The airline is expected to begin reuniting passengers with baggage personal belongings in the coming days. And of course, our thoughts are with those who are still hospitalized. Those four passengers who are still right now suffering and hoping that they recover.

Thank you so much for joining us, as always.

"AC360" with Anderson begins now.