Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Top Trump Officials Accidentally Texted Reporter Military Plans; Speaker Johnson Downplays Trump Team's Group Chat Security Lapse; Elon Musk Joins Trump Cabinet Meeting Again. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 24, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: And what was interesting was the idea, OK, maybe we'd spend a $1 billion, to perhaps purchase Greenland from Denmark. But even then, what you see is only 33 percent of Americans, back then, were in favor of it. The plurality, 38 percent, no. I have never seen a single poll in which the yeses, on us purchasing Greenland, was higher than the noes, throughout American history.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: All right. Harry Enten. You'll keep your eye on it, though .
ENTEN: I am going to keep my eye on it. You know me.
COOPER: Right.
ENTEN: I'm a big fan of this story.
COOPER: Of course.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. I'll see you, tomorrow.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
New reporting, on the fallout, inside the White House, after a shocking security breach, with the nation's top national security officials discussing attack plans, with a reporter mistakenly added to the group chat. That reporter, Jeffrey Goldberg, is here live tonight.
And also, the reaction inside the military and the intelligence community. A former Cabinet secretary, and military veteran says, operationally, this is the highest level of f-up imaginable. I'm quoting Pete Buttigieg, but he'll join me live shortly.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, I have new reporting on the fallout inside the White House, after an extraordinary breach that has engulfed the Trump administration at the highest levels.
I've been hearing from officials, throughout the day, after the editor of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed this bombshell, that he was mistakenly included on a text thread, on an encrypted app, with more than a dozen of the highest-ranking national security advisers, in the federal government, discussing U.S. attack plans, specifically for military strikes on the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen.
Now, while multiple officials to me described being stunned by this report. President Trump initially said he wasn't aware of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 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 sets of materials and--
TRUMP: Having to do with what? Having to do with what? What were they talking about?
REPORTER: The Houthis.
TRUMP: The Houthis, you mean the attack on the Houthis?
REPORTER: Correct.
TRUMP: Well, it couldn't have been very effective, because the attack was very effective, I can tell you that. I don't know anything about it.
REPORTER: You don't know--
TRUMP: You're telling me about it for the first time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, the White House is not arguing the authenticity of this group chat. In fact, they're confirming that it appears to be quite real. It included not only the National Security Advisor, but the Vice President, the Defense Secretary, and the Directors of National Intelligence and the CIA.
Jeffrey Goldberg writes that on Tuesday, March 11, I got a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz. That's Trump's National Security Advisor.
Goldberg, says that two days later, on Thursday, at 04:28 p.m., I received a notice that I was to be included in a Signal chat group. It was called the 'Houthi PC small group.' PC, meaning the principals who advise the President of the United States.
Then, after two more days of messages, Goldberg says the account labeled 'Pete Hegseth' posted a team update. Operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, the weapons that would be used, and how it would all go down.
Goldberg thought maybe he was being conned, at the beginning. But then, the day of the planned strikes, he says, I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city.
The minute this story published today, it was blasted out in multiple text threads, throughout the administration, viewed by several people I spoke to, as a major unforced error. Aides noted it didn't help that the reporter, Mike Waltz added to this group chat, is one that Trump has a particular disdain for, given his previous reporting on him.
And it also wasn't lost on anyone, in Washington, regarding what Trump used to say about Hillary Clinton, and her use of a private server, or what his now-senior officials once said, either.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: If it was anyone other than Hillary Clinton, they would be in jail right now.
MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: Nobody is above the law, not even Hillary Clinton, even though she thinks she is.
JOHN RATCLIFFE, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Mishandling classified information is still a violation of the Espionage Act.
MICHAEL WALTZ, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR OF THE UNITED STATES: When you have the Clinton emails, on top of the fact that the sitting President of the United States admitted he had documents in his garage. But they didn't prosecute, they didn't go after these folks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Hillary Clinton responded tonight with this. You have got to be kidding me.
Now, Goldberg also reported that when it comes to security, Hegseth wrote at one point, We are currently clean on OPSEC. That's the acronym used for Operational Security.
But when he was asked moments ago, when he landed in Hawaii, about why the details of this operation were shared on Signal, an encrypted messaging app that anyone can use, the Pentagon chief responded with this.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: So you're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist, who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes, time and time again, to include the, I don't know, the hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia, or the Fine people on both sides hoax, or Suckers and losers hoax. So this is the guy that peddles in garbage. This is what he does. REPORTER: Why were those details shared on Signal, and how did you learn that a journalist was privy to the targets, the types of weapons used and the timing?
HEGSETH: I've heard how -- I've heard how it was characterized. Nobody was texting war plans. And that's all I have to say about that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My lead source tonight is the reporter at the center of this story, the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg.
And it's great to have you here tonight.
I want to start by getting your reaction to what we heard from Secretary Hegseth there, saying that, Nobody was texting war plans. Given you were privy to this group chat, is that how you saw it?
JEFFREY GOLDBERG, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, THE ATLANTIC: No, that's a lie. He was texting war plans. He was texting attack plans, when targets were going to be targeted, how they were going to be targeted, who was at the targets, when the next sequence of attacks were happening.
I didn't publish this, and I continue not to publish it, because it felt like it was too confidential, too technical. And I worry, honestly, that sharing that kind of information in public could endanger American military personnel.
But no, they were -- they were plans for the attack.
COLLINS: That's when--
GOLDBERG: And they were texted before the attack.
COLLINS: And there were things texted that you viewed as so sensitive, you did not even publish them--
GOLDBERG: Right.
COLLINS: --in your report today.
GOLDBERG: I made the decision that the technical aspects of this, including what kinds of weapons packages, the attack sequencing, and so on, that's not necessarily in the public interest.
What's in the public interest is that they were running a war plan, on a messaging app, and didn't even know who was invited into the conversation. I mean, it's an obvious, ridiculous security breach. And he, if you notice, he didn't actually answer the question.
COLLINS: But his attempt at a denial also stood out to me. Because no one that I talked to at the White House today argued this, or tried to say, These were misconstrued, or altered, or, This is not real.
GOLDBERG: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, the National Security Council confirmed the veracity of this.
GOLDBERG: Yes, the National Security Council, I asked various officials, including Pete Hegseth, this morning, for comment.
And the first question I had for everyone, Is this real? I wanted to make sure, obviously, before we go public, and say, Are you sure that this is not a disinformation campaign run by a foreign state, a non- state actor of some sort, trying to target a journalist for reasons I couldn't explain?
And they're like, No, no, this is a -- this is apparently a real channel. And I appreciate them telling the truth about that, and we published, writing--
COLLINS: Did they seem alarmed when you reached out for comment?
GOLDBERG: Probably it's not the happiest day that they experienced in the White House so far, but they were professional about it.
COLLINS: I thought that -- as you were kind of walking through, when this began, you weren't even sure if it was real, yourself.
GOLDBERG: Oh, I was--
COLLINS: You thought maybe, I'm being spun or conned--
GOLDBERG: Yes.
COLLINS: --or something is happening here.
GOLDBERG: No, I until -- until the day that I received the attack plan, from Pete Hegseth, at 11:44 a.m., that's Saturday, March 15, and then saw. The attack plan said that 13:45, 01:45 p.m., Eastern Time, that the first bombs would be dropping in Yemen.
Until that moment, until that period elapsed, the two-hour period between that text and the first bombs being dropped, I thought it was a hoax. I thought somebody was trying to entrap me. Again, could it have been a foreign intelligence service? Could it have been a gadfly organization that tries to entrap journalists, which we know happens. I didn't know what it was, or who it was.
But what I did know was that the obvious answer was that this is a real conversation of the National Security Leadership of the United States. Seemed improbable to me, because why would they do it on Signal? Why would they do this on a messaging app? And why would they invite the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic to watch?
COLLINS: And how many people were on this chat?
GOLDBERG: 18.
COLLINS: And did any of them, at any point, when you were included in here, ever raise that, that question, why are we talking about this over Signal?
GOLDBERG: Nobody -- nobody raised the question, Why are we talking about this over Signal? And nobody said, Hey, who is JG? Because you show up in a little bubble as your initials. And no one, at any point, said, Who is JG?
[21:10:00]
And when I withdrew from the group? You formally remove yourself, you hit a button, it says, JG has removed himself from the group. I assumed that somebody would say, Hey, who just removed himself from the group? Nothing.
COLLINS: You didn't hear from Mike Waltz or anyone else after that?
GOLDBERG: No, no, nothing at all. I mean, it's a level of incuriosity, I guess that's the polite way of saying it, it's a level of recklessness, that I have not seen in many years of reporting on national security issues.
COLLINS: And so, you eventually remove yourself from the chat.
GOLDBERG: Right. Once I was sure that it was real.
COLLINS: But after you've seen everything, I mean, you published these messages.
GOLDBERG: Well, I don't know what I haven't seen since then. But yes, I removed myself, and I started writing this story.
COLLINS: That's fair.
GOLDBERG: In order to expose the security breach.
COLLINS: And some White House reporters today were saying, Maybe I would have never removed myself from that, but.
GOLDBERG: These are -- these are tough -- these are tough questions, but -- and I can't go into it, all the decision-making involved in this.
But I found out what I needed to find out. A, that it was real, and B, that it did represent the kind of gap, the Mack Truck-sized gap in their security that I could never have imagined a White House experiencing.
COLLINS: I mean, because you're a reporter, and probably a worse nightmare to have someone included on a chat, but a foreign adversary or someone who wanted to do real harm to the United States. I think that's the concern that is so obvious.
GOLDBERG: Look, I say this only half-jokingly. I mean, I'm sitting in a Safeway parking lot watching my phone, realizing, Oh, my God, this might be real. I think Pete Hegseth just sent this group, actual targeting information, actual sequencing of an attack. And I'm holding onto the phone. I don't want anybody to -- and then I thought to myself, Well, I mean, I guess they're lucky they didn't send this to a Houthi by mistake, or to a foreign diplomat, or to somebody who would plausibly be in one of their phones. I guess that counts as a kind of luck.
That's why they don't -- that's why they're not supposed to use opensource, privately-owned messaging services. They're supposed to keep all those conversations on what they call the high-side, that's the classified side, where only government officials who are cleared to talk about this stuff get to talk about it. That's why they have that.
COLLINS: You typically can't even download Signal to a classified device that like--
GOLDBERG: No.
COLLINS: --that they issue at the Pentagon, for example.
GOLDBERG: Right.
COLLINS: Was there anyone in the group chat, who surprised you, that you were wondering, Why would they be included in this conversation at all?
GOLDBERG: Well, it was an interesting chat. It wasn't just CIA or intelligence officials, not just defense officials.
The Secretary of State was there. Secretary of Treasury was there. The White House Chief of Staff was there, White House political aides, like Stephen Miller, I believe, was there. It was a pretty broad group, given, you know -- given that the level that it was at. It was just a kind of an all-encompassing coordination group for a specific action.
I would say, to answer your question, I have been surprised by most aspects of this story, since I first got invited into the Signal chat.
COLLINS: I mean, what have you heard today? I mean, I was getting blown up about this, messages of people saying that they couldn't believe what they were reading in your piece. What did you hear from people today?
GOLDBERG: That they couldn't believe what they were hearing in the piece.
I mean, like I said, I mean, I'm very interested, obviously, in what the professionals say about this, professional reporters who cover these issues, like I have, people who have been in government.
And it's a combination of extreme bad luck. Who did -- how could you possibly invite the editor of The Atlantic into your chat? What are the chances of that?
And also, just real anxiety and anger, both about the sloppiness. Remember, American service people were involved directly in this attack. It wasn't just standoff weapons fired from a 1,000 miles away, you know? But you can't just put out this kind of information, and hope for the best.
The other piece that people are upset about, and there's a lot of military people feel this way, is like, Hey, we have guidelines about how we're supposed to handle sensitive information. We have to pass tests, every year, on this. We get punished if we leave something on a desk. You know, we get punished if we don't put it in a safe.
What's going to happen here? These guys are just chatting. They're sitting, on the weekends, in their homes, at stores, at restaurants, on their phones. And what's going to happen, you know? They're wondering if there's a couple of -- you know, a double standard.
COLLINS: What did you make of the argument that, which we keep hearing from officials, This revealed the thoughtful and deliberative process that they went through? Because there was -- there was disagreement over how to proceed--
GOLDBERG: Yes.
COLLINS: --which I want to ask you about in a moment.
But what did you make of that, saying, This actually just reveals how this process works.
[21:15:00]
GOLDBERG: It does. It does. I mean, that was part of -- the interesting part of the reporting for me was that, Oh, wow, we just found out that JD Vance really disagrees with the President on this particular issue. JD Vance made a compelling argument. Other people counter the argument.
What was really interesting was that the person designated SM, which I took to be Stephen Miller, shut down that conversation, said, I heard the President say, we're doing this, and we're doing this. And that was the end of the conversation.
COLLINS: Well, and for those who haven't read the story, which everyone should, the Vice President's disagreement, you said was, was clear with moving forward on the strike. Because you quoted him as saying, "I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There's a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself."
But he was arguing for delaying these strikes.
GOLDBERG: Yes, well, what's interesting is that he's arguing -- he's saying that he would keep those concerns to himself. But he's basically just told the entire Cabinet that he disagrees with the President's decision. And not only that. That he doesn't think the President understands, that's pretty heavy, doesn't think the President understands the consequences and ramifications. That was very revealing and interesting.
I would say, yes, I found the policy dialog very, very interesting to read, and you could see the different strains of thought in this administration. Ultimately, they came into line, and they launched the attack.
COLLINS: The President responded, today, by pointing to the success of the attack, and bashing The Atlantic. The reporter didn't cite you specifically. He may not have known, at that point, that it was you who was included. I think that might change his reaction, just based on how he's responded in the past.
What was your reaction to that?
GOLDBERG: I found it interesting. And I want to look at the timeline.
But I find it interesting that I believe that was early in the afternoon. I alerted the White House, shortly after 09:00 in the morning, and that was -- that was emails and texts, and calls to Mike Waltz, Stephen Miller, Susie Wiles, and so on.
I found it interesting. And again, I want to figure this out. The President said he didn't know, three or four hours later? That struck me as noteworthy and worth more exploration.
COLLINS: Who do you think they meant to add instead of you? Do you -- have you figured that out?
GOLDBERG: I have not. It's probably--
COLLINS: I've been searching, JG, all day, on the White House website.
GOLDBERG: Maybe Jeff Goldblum.
I think there is somebody in Washington, right now, who finally understands why he wasn't or she wasn't included in this conversation that they should have been included in. I don't know. I mean, it could have been -- it could have been a mistyped name. It doesn't necessarily have to be somebody with the initials, JG. I don't know.
I've also heard speculation that they wanted me in this conversation, in order to show how thoughtful and tough they are on Yemen. My response to that is, there are easier ways to let me know, which is just you call me and tell me.
COLLINS: Yes, that's 3D chess. I'm not sure that's who is--
GOLDBERG: That's 5D chess, yes.
COLLINS: Jeffrey Goldberg, I mean, it was the story of the day. Thank you for joining to talk about it.
GOLDBERG: Thank you.
COLLINS: Really appreciate that.
GOLDBERG: Thanks.
COLLINS: Up next. We're going to hear from Pete Buttigieg. His reaction to all of this, as the former top official under President Biden. Also spent six years as an intelligence officer. What does he say could have happened, had these plans got into the hands of an adversary?
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: The stunning leak of highly sensitive military plans, accidentally shared on an encrypted group chat between Trump administration officials, and The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg that you just heard from, included details on targets, weapons and timing. He didn't reveal that. But put in the wrong hands, it could have put roughly 40,000 U.S. troops, currently deployed in the Middle East, at risk.
My next source spent six years as an intelligence officer in the Navy Reserves, and a six-month deployment in Afghanistan. Former Biden Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg, joins me now.
And it's great to have you here, sir.
Just what was your reaction to this breach of extremely sensitive defense information?
PETE BUTTIGIEG, FORMER TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY UNDER PRES. BIDEN, (D) FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It was shocking.
And I got to say, all the things that I've seen happen in the last few weeks, it's taken a lot, to feel genuinely shocked. But this is genuinely shocking. We're talking about incredibly sensitive, highly classified information that they didn't just discuss on an unclassified system. They sent war plans to the wrong guy.
Now they're lucky, and we're lucky that that wrong guy was a responsible, patriotic, ethical journalist, who you've just had on this program, who knew not to publish anything that could put people's lives in danger.
But I got two questions on my mind. One, what if this had, in fact, gone to somebody else? I mean, somebody who could plausibly be in some of these people's cell phones? I don't know, the Chinese ambassador, or Russian negotiator.
And the other question on my mind is, how many other times has something like this happened? This is the one that we know about. But how many other times could they have screwed up like this, in a way that puts American troops and families in harm's way?
COLLINS: Yes, is your concern that if they were texting about this, and had this group chat, that maybe there are other encrypted chats about this, using Signal, an app that anyone can download, that anyone can use, if they're inadvertently added to it, like this was? BUTTIGIEG: Yes. The whole point of classified information systems is to keep classified information on them.
And by the way, I don't know everything about how Pete Hegseth's computers work. But I know this. In my experience, both in the Cabinet, and as an intelligence officer, you would have to go out of your way to take classified information, and move it into an unclassified system.
[21:25:00]
I don't know if a lot of folks understand how this works. But it's not like there's a computer where you might get an unclassified email, and a classified email in the same inbox. They're not even the same computers by design. It is very difficult for information to move from one system to the other, unless somebody goes out of their way to do that. And I don't (ph) want to speculate on how the FBI will respond to this, or how Congress will respond to this.
But I know that it was drilled into us, back when I was an intelligence officer, that if you ever took top secret information, moved it over to an unclassified system, and disclosed it, that that would be a crime.
I mean, I can't tell you how much this was drilled into us, when I was in the military, so much so that I would have bad dreams, when I was a junior officer about, accidentally, maybe bringing in my cell phone into a classified area, where you were supposed to physically check in your cell phone, and not even bring it into that space, so that if there's some listening device, it couldn't possibly -- that information couldn't possibly get out.
And by the way, got to zoom out and make sure everybody understands why this information is classified. It's not just classified because it's -- because it's interesting or because it's special. By definition, when something is highly classified, it is highly classified because if it got into the wrong hands, it could harm national security, or get American troops killed.
COLLINS: Yes, well, and just in terms of how this is typically handled, and the fact that it was in this group chat that obviously he was in, and no one noticed he was in, you said, maybe FBI investigations, congressional investigations.
Do you think that federal laws were broken here, whether that be the Federal Records Act, given everyone knows Signal is set to delete, if you -- and, as he reported, this was set to delete, meaning, there is no record of this conversation after it expires after a while? Or do you believe this violated the Espionage Act?
BUTTIGIEG: I would have very real concerns about violations of both of those laws. And remember, some of these same people suggested that others should go to jail in the past for far less.
Now, this will be a test of integrity for the FBI, which is ordinarily responsible for counterintelligence investigations, and investigating the mishandling of classified information.
It's also a huge test for Congress. It's a test for congressional Republicans who, if they have any integrity, know that this is a serious matter. Now we've already seen a lot of them rushing to make excuses for this. But this is incredibly serious stuff.
COLLINS: President Trump, as you saw earlier, was saying he wasn't aware of this report. We're since told he's been briefed on it.
But he reposted something that Elon Musk wrote earlier, kind of mocking all of this, by making fun of The Atlantic. He wrote, Best place to hide a dead body is page 2 of The Atlantic magazine, because no one ever goes there. Trump reposted that earlier.
Do you see that as making light of what has happened here?
BUTTIGIEG: Yes, because this is all a game to them. Nobody in Donald Trump's family is on a ship in the Mediterranean. Nobody in Elon Musk's family is at risk from the kinds of economic or security harms that are going on here. They think all of this is a joke or a game, because these are incredibly rich, powerful men who, frankly, don't have to worry about the kinds of things most Americans do.
And look, this is part of a bigger pattern, right, the sloppiness and the incompetence.
Whether it's firing the people who were in charge of keeping our nuclear weapons safe, apparently, by accident, and then scrambling to hire them back on.
Whether it's sending an email to try to buy out air traffic controllers, in the middle of an air traffic control shortage, and then scrambling, after a plane crash, to say, Oh, that never applied to them.
Whether it's that DOGE site, their so-called Wall of Receipts, thinking that they were proving that they saved the taxpayer, $8 billion with a B, not realizing that the contract they were talking about was $8 million with an M, which means they were off by 100,000 percent.
And now, this incredibly grave and serious matter, of taking classified information about American battle plans, involving American troops, and randomly sending those battle plans to the wrong guy. If they don't understand the seriousness of that, then they don't understand how their jobs affect the lives of ordinary American people. And as an American, having the most powerful people in your country, not take their responsibilities seriously can be lethal.
Every day I was in Afghanistan, I knew that I could die because of an intelligence failure, that if certain information about what I was doing got into the wrong hands, that that could cost me my life.
But I also knew that everybody in my chain of command, up and down, from the gunny sergeant sitting next to me in a vehicle, to the colonel, to the then-Secretary of Defense, and President of the United States, took my security, and the security of all of our troops seriously, took the responsibility, the life and death responsibility they had--
COLLINS: Yes.
BUTTIGIEG: --seriously, and would keep me safe.
COLLINS: Do you think someone should be fired over this?
[21:30:00]
BUTTIGIEG: Absolutely. I mean, if I made a shtick (ph) like this, as a lieutenant, I would be probably not just fired, but probably indicted and tried and maybe in prison.
And the idea that -- you remember, that these guys love talking about merit, right? We hear a lot about this alleged principle that they're hiring people on merit.
I think, there's some questions there. I mean, our current Secretary of Defense hadn't shown a lot of evidence, of running a large organization or, let alone, running a large organization well, and he got put in charge of the largest organization in the United States of America, and the most important organization in the world, which is the U.S. Department of Defense.
And if there's not accountability for a screw-up like this, especially from a president who used to fire people, every day, on television, for sport, what are we even doing here?
COLLINS: Pete Buttigieg, thank you for joining, and thank you for your time tonight.
BUTTIGIEG: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next. Our insiders are here. What they are hearing from the White House tonight on the fallout.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Shock and disbelief. That is the reaction inside the White House, tonight, from some people to the news that a reporter was accidentally included in a group chat, with the most senior aides in the federal government, about sensitive military plans in Yemen.
Sources tell me tonight that at least two Trump officials were openly speculating, about whether or not this could result in the firing of one of their colleagues. No sign of that yet.
But my deeply-sourced White House insiders are here.
Politico's Dasha Burns.
The Atlantic's Michael Scherer. And former Pentagon spokesperson, Chris Meagher.
Dasha, what are you hearing from officials tonight about the fallout here?
DASHA BURNS, WHITE HOUSE BUREAU CHIEF, POLITICO: So we have new reporting with my colleagues that, look, as soon as this started to really settle, for officials inside at the White House, there began some furious discussions, about who is going to pay for this.
There was some consensus that there is going to need to be a head, and right now, the top contender seems to be Mike Waltz. Now, this is somebody that already had some knives out for him from folks that didn't appreciate him -- his sort of neocon background. So this could also be an opening, for some of the folks that have been waiting with knives out. But certainly, there's a lot of speculation about his future.
One source told me that at least two top White House officials, in another text thread, said that they think he should resign, to spare Trump further problems.
COLLINS: Well, and neocon, that's what the people who don't like Mike Waltz, call him.
BURNS: Right.
COLLINS: Obviously, he's a former Green Beret, who was elected to Congress and obviously just has taken a different stance on Ukraine and other issues in the past.
BURNS: That's right.
COLLINS: But on this front, he was the one who originated the group text, who added Jeffrey Goldberg to it, according to Jeffrey Goldberg's reporting.
Today, the reaction from the Pentagon, from the State Department, seems to be pointing the finger back to the National Security Council, saying, essentially, Talk to them, as you're reporting this out.
MICHAEL SCHERER, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Right. But there's -- every other person on that Signal group chain knows they're on a Signal group chain, and every other person on that chain knows what was discussed on that chain.
You saw Hegseth today, saying that those weren't war plans. I mean, you can ask now, Marco Rubio, what was actually discussed, you consider those war plans? You can ask the head of the CIA, whether he's concerned about that. So, I think there is complicity there.
Ultimately, it's going to come down to President Trump. I mean, this is a situation, where he's going to decide whether he plays it like he did the Hegseth nomination. You just barrel through, move through the news cycle, push it aside. Clearly, that's what Hegseth was playing for tonight, in those comments. Or, he tries to take a different tack. What's interesting is he still has yet to really comment on this.
BURNS: Well, that was the other piece that I was hearing from White House officials. They said, Look, we are having this conversation. That doesn't mean that President Trump has made any sort of decisions. He's going to sit back, watch how this plays out, over the next 24 to 48 hours, and then we see maybe it is Hegseth that's actually in the hot seat--
COLLINS: Yes.
BURNS: --or any of the others in that text thread.
COLLINS: And maybe no one gets fired.
BURNS: And maybe no one.
COLLINS: And it's hard to know with Trump, obviously, is unpredictable.
SCHERER: Yes.
COLLINS: But you worked at the Pentagon. How unusual would it be to just on this level? I mean, can you even download Signal on a classified device at the Pentagon? How does this work, for people who are not inside the government, don't have security clearances?
CHRIS MEAGHER, FORMER PENTAGON SENIOR SPOKESPERSON: I don't even think you can download Signal on your unclassified Pentagon device, but you definitely can't do it on your classified devices.
COLLINS: Wow.
MEAGHER: It's classified for a reason. It's very sensitive information that can impact people's lives. We're talking about American troops, overseas, in very dangerous situations, who you're putting at risk. And I think we need to take a step back, and really understand why we classify information in the first place. That's why, to keep our troops safe.
So, if you're talking about stuff in an unclassified system, who knows has -- who has access to those phones, right? If I were our adversaries, I'd be targeting the phones of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor. Who knows what's going on in those phones already?
But they're texting about operational plans while fighter jets are in the air. That's putting our national security, that's putting our American troops at risk.
COLLINS: When Trump said today, his initial reaction, that he did not know about this story yet. Obviously, it's not clear. Someone had maybe mentioned it or just not fully read them in. He hadn't (ph) had a Cabinet meeting.
But it kind of struck back to what happened, last week, when The New York Times reported that Elon Musk was getting this very sensitive briefing at the Pentagon. It's kind of in this pattern of Trump saying, Well, I'm not aware of that, or, I don't know about that.
What is the sense of whether or not he's actually not aware of it, or if that is, he's not being kept in the loop by some of his senior aides?
[21:40:00]
SCHERER: Well, I don't know when he was briefed on it. But I do know that the President doesn't like to reward reporters for reporting things that make his administration look bad. He is concerned about those reports, though. So those are different things.
And I think The New York Times story last week, I think this story this week, he's going to deal with this internally. But he doesn't want to give any public showing that someone else has left a mark.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll continue to follow this. Great to have your reporting, and your insight. Thank you so much for this.
There is a real question, as you heard Pete Buttigieg mention, what is Congress going to do here? We're going to speak to two prominent members, one Republican, one Democrat, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: House Speaker, Mike Johnson, had this response on the administration mistakenly revealing secret military plans to a reporter.
[21:45:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): What you did see, though, I think, was top- level officials doing their job, doing it well, and executing on a plan with precision. That mission was a success. No one was jeopardized because of it. We're grateful for that. But they will certainly, I'm sure, make sure that that doesn't happen again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My congressional sources tonight are, Democratic congressman from New York, Tom Suozzi. And Republican congressman of Pennsylvania, Brian Fitzpatrick.
And it's great to have you both here.
I'll start with you, Congressman Suozzi. What did you make of Speaker Johnson's view of this, as a well-executed plan, and being able to read through this?
REP. TOM SUOZZI (D-NY): Well, he's diverting from the topic here. I mean, the military mission turned out to be successful. But this conversation that took place on Signal, that was a non-classified environment, was a major screw-up.
COLLINS: Yes, and do you believe that this warrants a congressional investigation?
REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): Well, it will. So, I'm on the Committee of Jurisdiction, House Intelligence Committee. Very limited on what I can share, at this point, other than there will be an interrogatory that goes out to ODNI, to make sure that we have a 360-degree view of the facts directly from the source.
We'll have our oversight hearings in a SCIF. We'll do our work in private, as our Intelligence Committee always does, and share what we can, if and when that warrants.
COLLINS: So, that means there is going to be an investigation.
FITZPATRICK: I would--
COLLINS: And in plain English, it does.
FITZPATRICK: I would presume. I mean, it's all going to depend on -- we do have an inquiry out, or it will be going out short -- in short order to ODNI. They're the -- they're the source of the information that will gather about this.
COLLINS: OK. And I know you're limited on what you could say. But if it goes out to Director Gab -- Tulsi Gabbard here, who was on that group chat, does that mean other people will also be interviewed, since it was -- it was 18 officials or so who were on this message? Or is it too early to say?
FITZPATRICK: Yes, I mean, as soon as the interrogatory comes back, that's when the committee will make a determination, in a bipartisan fashion, on how to proceed.
And if the interrogatory comes back that hearings are warranted, which they may very well be? We bring the witnesses in. We agree on who those witnesses should be. We gather the facts in a SCIF, outside of the view of a camera, gather the facts, and then figure out the next steps.
COLLINS: And--
SUOZZI: And Senator Wicker has also talked about doing something in the Senate as well.
COLLINS: In a SCIF, just to be clear, is typically where they would discuss things, like what was discussed on this group chat. It's a sensitive room, where you can have these conversations freely. What would you like to see as a result of an investigation, if a full- fledged one is warranted here?
SUOZZI: I think that an investigation is what's warranted here, to get to the bottom of the facts. But it's just obvious, from everything we know already, that even commonsense says, this was a major screw-up, and somebody should be held accountable. Now, who that is? The investigation will help reveal that.
COLLINS: Yes, and Senator Roger Wicker did comment on this tonight. Obviously, he was one of the lead advocates, and really helped with the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, getting confirmed here.
One question that was raised by Pete Buttigieg, earlier today, a fellow Democrat of yours, was whether or not this could be happening in other instances. Do you have similar concerns about that?
SUOZZI: Well, my concern is a lot of the recklessness that we've seen the administration, the way they conduct themselves, in a lot of different ways. I mean, there's a lot of sensitive information that's being shared. We hear about the stuff with DOGE, and the people's Social Security information. We hear about this today. There's a lot of things that are kind of loosey-goosey in this administration.
So, this is serious stuff. It's life-and-death stuff, and it's got to be taken seriously.
COLLINS: Well, and I just think of, we've had so many conversations about classified documents conversations lately, ever since the classified documents investigation with not only President Trump, but also with President Biden as well. And when the Biden investigation happened, they were found in an unsecure location.
You said, classified documents can never be taken out of a SCIF, ever. No one is claiming it's OK. Certainly I'm not that it's OK to have classified information anywhere outside of a SCIF.
So, I would imagine this has prompted some concerns with even in the Republican Party, on Capitol Hill?
FITZPATRICK: In terms of classified information. Well, that's all got to be determined, right? That's why you have investigations. That's why we don't jump ahead of the facts.
Right now, it's all news-reporting, right? So we want to hear directly from ODNI, and we will proceed in a very responsible manner, I can assure you that.
FITZPATRICK: Senate's--
COLLINS: And you'd--
FITZPATRICK: Yes.
COLLINS: And NSC obviously did not deny the veracity of this. But you do expect that the Director of National Intelligence will comply with, with whatever you send?
FITZPATRICK: Absolutely. Absolutely, yes.
SUOZZI: Republican senator Murkowski said it very plainly. She said, What would we be saying if this was the Biden administration? It would be hair on fire.
So, I mean, this is kind of one of those things. There's a lot of -- going to be a lot of back and forth, there's going to be a lot of details. But just straightforward looking at it, this is a major screw-up of class -- what are the Chinese saying right now? What are our European allies saying? How do they feel about sharing intelligence data with us, when people are acting in this cavalier way on very sensitive topics? So this is, it's pretty straightforward thing that's it's wrong.
COLLINS: How quickly would you expect something like that would progress and the interrogatory that you said you sent?
FITZPATRICK: Well, I think it will go out soon, if it's not out already.
COLLINS: Tonight?
[21:50:00]
FITZPATRICK: That's a question for the Chairman of Intelligence. It will go out. It will go out soon. I'm sure, they want to round out the questions, they want to give a short timeline for a response. And then the committee is going to do its work.
COLLINS: OK. So that'll look like a questionnaire, essentially, that goes to them?
FITZPATRICK: I would assume so.
COLLINS: OK.
FITZPATRICK: I would assume so.
COLLINS: All right, well, please keep us updated on how it progresses. I know you can only say so much.
It's great to have you both. I really enjoyed this segment with the two of you. We'll talk about more matters in the future.
FITZPATRICK: Yes.
COLLINS: Thank you both, Congressman Suozzi and Congressman Fitzpatrick.
SUOZZI: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next. Elon Musk joined the Trump Cabinet, again today, at another meeting, wearing a different hat, though, this time, as the President publicly went to bat for him.
The veteran journalist, Maureen Dowd, once interviewed Elon Musk. She'll join me next, on her fantastic new book.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President Trump held another Cabinet meeting today. Right there at the table was the person that has joked he is the tech support for the Cabinet. That's how Elon Musk refers to himself. This time, he wore a red hat that had the words, Trump was Right About Everything. These hats have been seen all across the West Wing, in front of it.
[21:55:00]
My source tonight on this is the veteran journalist, Maureen Dowd, who is also the Author of the brand-new book, "Notorious." It is excellent. I've been reading it. Look at that cover there.
Maureen, Trump had defended Elon Musk, again today. And kind of has really taken on, anytime with the Tesla vandalism, the criticism of Elon Musk, Tesla's stock sinking, Trump has made this big show. I mean, they even are parking that red Tesla that he bought outside the West Wing.
What do you make of Musk having a seat at the table?
MAUREEN DOWD, JOURNALIST, AUTHOR, "NOTORIOUS": Well, a Trump biographer once told me that eventually Trump would be distilled to his essence. And I would say, when Trump was helping Elon sell Teslas, on the driveway of the White House, that was Trump's essence.
But, in the book, I interviewed Peter Thiel. And Peter Thiel and Elon were at PayPal together. They founded PayPal. And, you know, Trump -- sorry, Peter Thiel was predicting that Elon and Trump would end up together, even though Trump was, and Elon -- Elon did not support Trump in 2017. But--
COLLINS: Oh, that's fascinating.
DOWD: But Peter Thiel said they would end up very close, because they were both grandmaster chess players and larger-than-life figures, and eventually they would be drawn together. And he was right.
COLLINS: And was Peter Thiel saying that as a compliment, or just as someone who knew both of them?
DOWD: Well, Peter Thiel tells two amazing stories in this.
Where, he talks in the PayPal days, there was a PayPal poker game, every week. And so Elon joined the poker game. He bet everything on every hand. And afterwards, Peter was like, What are you doing? And he said, Well, I don't know how to play poker. And that reminds me of what's happening in Washington.
And he told -- Peter had another story, where he bought a McLaren F1 sports car, and Elon wanted to drive it, but Peter hadn't even gotten insurance yet, they didn't even have time to put on their seat belts. And the car immediately took flight, and made a 360-degree turn, and crashed. And Peter said it was a miracle, they both lived, with Elon driving. And again, you see his behavior in Washington is reminiscent.
COLLINS: You feel like what he's doing to the federal government is essentially analogous to those two things.
DOWD: Right. COLLINS: Betting everything on the poker because at the games, he didn't know how to play.
DOWD: And wearing -- no seatbelts.
COLLINS: I mean, they -- neither of them were wearing seat belts?
DOWD: Yes (ph).
COLLINS: I mean, this was a 2017 profile that you did of Elon Musk. And you wrote -- write in your book that you asked him about the flack he had gotten for associating with Trump, the pictures of tech executives with Trump, he had looked gloomy. There was a weary tone in his voice, when he talked about it.
And in the end, he said, It's better to have voices of moderation in the room with the president. There are a lot of people, kind of the hard left, who essentially want to isolate -- and not have any voice. Very unwise.
Do you still think he sees himself as the voice of moderation in the room?
DOWD: Well, I think when I wrote that, I went to talk to everyone in Silicon Valley, including Elon and Sam Altman, who had just founded OpenAI, which is now a big lawsuit, about the existential threat of AI.
And the people in Silicon Valley, the Lords of the Cloud, barely knew Washington existed. But at some point, recently, they decided to get out of their digital world, and come and buy the U.S. government. And now, they are kind of the existential threat to Washington.
COLLINS: Your book is a fascinating look at a lot of the people that you've profiled, the rich, famous, powerful, not just people like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk.
I loved the Uma Thurman story just because of what her experience, of what she lived through then, and dealing with Harvey Weinstein, and just what Hollywood was like for her, before and after the MeToo movement.
DOWD: Yes, I mean, from people I've talked to in Hollywood, the MeToo movement is a dim memory. It's like Women, yes, they had their moment, you
know? So, a lot of guys have actually told me they read the Uma one twice, which surprised me. But it's more than a MeToo story. It's the story of how she thought Quentin Tarantino was trying to kill her, and they are one of the most famous actress-auteur combinations in Hollywood history.
COLLINS: Because he put her in a car, and essentially she didn't feel like it was safe to drive. He insisted she drive it. Was it for Kill Bill 2, I believe?
DOWD: Yes. COLLINS: And it was just on this long, sandy road and?
DOWD: And he changed the route to have a curve, and gave all the stuntmen the day off. And she felt really betrayed by that.
COLLINS: Yes.
DOWD: That she was not protected by him.
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: The book is fantastic. I love how you described it as a Pioneering, talented, brilliant people at a certain moment in their lives, and these moments can be illuminating. It's -- the book is "Notorious."
Maureen Dowd, it's great to have you on THE SOURCE.
DOWD: Kaitlan, thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you for being here.
Thank you all so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" is up next.
