'This Week' Transcript 3-30-25: Sen. Mark Warner, Rep. Mike Turner, Dr. Ashish Jha, economist Diane Swonk & Adm. James Stavridis

A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, March 30, 2025 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive.

ANNOUNCER: "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR (voice-over): Economic turmoil.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Many countries have taken advantage of us. That has to stop.

RADDATZ: New tariffs take effect this week upending global alliances, shaking business and consumer confidence, and rattling the markets. What will this mean for the economy?

Diane Swonk breaks it down.

And scathing resignation. The FDA's top vaccine official steps down, accusing HHS Secretary RFK Jr. of pushing misinformation and lies.

Dr. Ashish Jha joins us on all the fallout.

Stunning leak.

PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There's no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths.

RADDATZ: Top administration officials downplay discussing attack plans for Yemen on the Signal app where they inadvertently included a journalist.

SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): This is utterly unprofessional. There's been no apology.

RADDATZ: How will Congress respond?

We'll ask Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner and former House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner.

Plus --

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have some interest in Greenland from the Trump administration.

RADDATZ: Vice President J.D. Vance visits Greenland as Trump ramps his expansionist rhetoric.

Terry Moran reports live from the Danish territory and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis reacts.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, it's "This Week." Here now, Martha Raddatz.

RADDATZ (on camera): Good morning and welcome to "This Week".

There has been a tidal wave of political news this week from the stunning revelation that top Trump officials discussed attack plans for air strikes on Yemen, long before they happened all in a group message thread that included a journalist to the reported forced resignation of the nation's top vaccine official late Friday, to the vice president's quick trip to Greenland. We'll get to all those stories in a moment.

But we begin with the economic fallout and uncertainty from the latest tariffs scheduled to launch in just days.

The president set to escalate his trade war this week as markets reel over tariffs he's already put in place. So, how will Trump's next moves shape the economy and how do Americans feel about it?

ABC's senior White House correspondent Selina Wang starts us off.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SELINA WANG, ABC NEWS SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This week, the stock market plunging as President Trump doubles down on his trade war. This month set to be the worst sell-off since September 2022, Trump announcing new 25 percent tariffs on all cars and auto parts made outside the U.S.

TRUMP: This is very exciting to me. This is the automobile industry, and this will continue to spur growth like you haven't seen before.

WANG: The president adamant these tariffs will boost manufacturing at home, but economists warn they'll raise prices for consumers. About half of vehicles sold in the U.S. are imported. Moody's estimates the cost of a new car could increase more than $6,000 by this time next year.

Aman Singh runs a Toyota dealership in New York, he says they've been flooded with concerned calls.

AMAN SINGH, SMITHTOWN TOYOTA GENERAL MANAGER: We've been telling them, hey, listen, we have cars here. If you pick something I have here, it's that price.

WANG: Those new tariffs kick in on Thursday, just one day after Trump is set to announce sweeping retaliatory tariffs on imports from many countries around the world.

Trump holding a call with Canada's new prime minister on Friday.

TRUMP: We had a very, very good talk. We have liberation day, as you know, on Aril 2nd.

WANG: Carney warning the U.S. is no longer a reliable partner, vowing to retaliate with their own tariffs on U.S. products.

MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperations is over.

WANG: This lumberyard owner telling me recently that tariffs on Canadian lumber will hit his business hard.

DENNIS WOODRUFF, MARYLAND SELECT HARDWOODS OWNER: It's going to hurt my sales in the long run.

WANG: President Trump says that foreign countries pay the price of tariffs?

WOODRUFF: Well, if it -- if it costs me 25 percent, my customers are going to pay for it.

WANG: The uncertainty around tariffs sending consumer confidence tumbling. A University of Michigan survey shows consumer sentiment is now at a three-year low, and Trump's own standing plummeting. A new poll finding 59 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WANG (on camera): And Martha, Friday's jobs report is expected to be another key indicator of whether businesses are holding back because of the tariffs. And for the first time, the report is expected to show the impact of President Trump and Elon Musk's sweeping cuts to the federal work force. Martha?

RADDATZ: And our thanks to Selina. I'm joined now by Diane Swonk, Chief Economist and Managing Director at the accounting firm, KPMG. It's great to see you this morning, Diane. These are slated to be the most significant rounds of tariffs yet. President calls it 'Liberation Day'. There's already reaction with the markets tumbling on Friday after some gains. So, what are you seeing?

DIANE SWONK, CHIEF ECONOMIST AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KPMG: Well, what we're seeing is we've seen consumers are already very concerned about this and there's some hunkering down behavior. Even the Federal Reserve's Beige Book which sort of looks at economic conditions across all the different districts, there's not only reports of people front-running tariffs, trying to produce and stack stockpile ahead of tariffs, but also increases in price and the intention to pass them on to consumers, which is why consumers are not very happy at the moment.

What we're also concerned about is what employment is looking like, because we've had two consumer surveys now, one is the Confidence Board, one is University of Michigan Sentiment Survey, and they both show two things, an increase in inflation expectations and a deterioration in job expectations, in job security. That's -- that's a very worrisome combination. It has that flavor of stagflation to it, a mild bout of stagflation.

RADDATZ: And so, what is the outlook because of that for consumers? What should they be thinking?

SWONK: Well, we've seen across every income group, every age, every demographic, every wealth strata, and every party affiliation, a major deterioration in consumer confidence. Even the wealthiest households, which now account for a disproportionate amount of overall spending, they're starting to say that they're not confident in the economy and their future finances. That's very important because they account for almost half -- 10 percent of households account for almost half of all spending in the U.S. economy, which also speaks to how the inequality that we are already seeing in the U.S. economy, which is quite stark.

And that's why we worry about tariffs because tariffs are a regressive tax. They hit those with low and middle incomes much harder than higher incomes. But even among the highest-income strata, you're seeing sort of tentativeness. And on days where we see the stock market go down, you can literally see almost in real-time, spending at luxury goods stores pulled back. And I think that's important to remember as well.RADDATZ: And Diane, specifically on the 25 percent tariffs on cars and car parts made outside the U.S., Trump said prices will go down because it will incentivize companies to build in the U.S. Do you agree?

SWONK: The economics does not suggest that at all. And I'm not alone. It's the economic consensus that actually, in fact, car prices will go up. And what we tend to see is some of it will be absorbed in margins and some of it will show up in layoffs as higher costs go up in terms of production. But, it's just very hard to find things that are solely produced in the United States. And even those car makers that are most insulated from tariffs do get some kind of parts from abroad or steel that is going to increase the cost of that vehicle.

Another important issue is the uncertainty of tariffs via executive order. They can literally change with a pen stroke. Because of that, there's no certainty on how long they'll actually last and that's important when you're thinking about building a plant and bringing production back for -- that takes, you know, three to five years to do. And then you've got to have the workers to be able to work in it. That's not an easy commitment to make when you don't know what the future is actually going to hold with regard to tariffs.

RADDATZ: Sounds like a lot to worry about there, Diane, but we appreciate your time this morning.

SWONK: Thank you.

RADDATZ: Also breaking late this week, the sudden departure of the FDA's top vaccine expert, Dr. Peter Marks. This coming as the workforce at HHS is being slashed by 25 percent and the measles outbreak across the country is growing. So let's bring in Dr. Ashish Jha, Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, who served as White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator in the Biden administration. It's good to see you this morning, Dr. Jha.

Peter Marks played a crucial role in the development of the COVID-19 vaccine. And we are told by an official familiar with Marks' resignation, that it wasn't really a resignation, that he was pushed out basically.

This is what he said in his resignation letter. 'It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lie.' Your reaction to all of this?

JHA: Well, first of all, it's good to be back. And this is a tragic moment. Peter Marks is one of the best scientists in America, was the Chief Scientific Architect as you said of Operation Warp Speed, President Trump's signature initiative in the pandemic.

But more and more recently, he has been pushed to advocate for quack vitamins and cod liver oil, and not the thing that we know works for measles, which is vaccines. And for someone with his scientific integrity, I think it's got to be too much.

RADDATZ: You -- you have made no secret about your concern over RFK Jr. as HHS secretary. He is also planning to establish a so-called “Vaccine Injury Agency” within the CDC.

JHA: Yeah, look, we absolutely should be tracking side effects and injuries from vaccines. They're rare but they happen, and it's important to assess them.

What he is doing is elevating that issue to a point and bringing in people who are not scientists, who are going to make the data on injuries and side effects much more dramatic than they are. Like we should be tracking it. CDC does track it.

What he's doing is really augmenting that issue in a way that is totally inappropriate. We don't do that for any other medicines. We shouldn't be doing that for vaccines.

RADDATZ: And people hear this. It has an effect.

JHA: Absolutely, and we know it has an effect because we're seeing vaccination rates among children declining and that, of course, is putting kids across America at risk.

RADDATZ: And what about the cuts at HHS? They announced this week that it'll eventually be 20,000 --

JHA: Yeah.

RADDATZ: -- 25 percent of the workforce.

JHA: Yeah.

RADDATZ: Look, you can look across the federal government and say could there be cuts anywhere? But when you look at HHS, is this a realistic cut?

JHA: Well, look, I -- I've served in government. I will tell you, the government could be a lot more efficient, no doubt about it. The question is how are you going about those cuts and what are the (INAUDIBLE) elimination -- positions you're eliminating?

They're going to get rid of people who do inspections of nursing homes to make sure nursing homes are safe. They're going to get rid of people who go into factories to make sure our drug supply is safe.

So, what I'm worried about is not so much the cuts but where the cuts are going to be. Are they going to be targeted and thoughtful?

So far, we've seen no evidence that these cuts are targeted and thoughtful, and I actually really worried about the impact on the health and safety of Americans.

RADDATZ: And -- and speaking of health and safety, the measles outbreak -- 400 cases of measles in Texas alone, nearly 500 cases nationwide. We've been hearing this over the last couple of months. Is it something we should be super concerned about at this point?

JHA: It is, and I'll tell you why. We have already surpassed the number of cases we had in 2024, and we're still just in March. We are on track to have the worst measles outbreak of this century, of the last 25 years.

This is wholly preventable. We've already had two people die. I'm worried we're going to see more children get very, very sick and die.

We should not be at this point in our country, and yet here we are because of bad information being spread by Secretary Kennedy and others.

RADDATZ: Okay. Thanks for joining us this morning. Good to see you, Dr. Jha.

Up next, was it classified or not? Senate Intel Vice Chair Mark Warner joins me for the latest on that high-level, very sensitive group chat.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RADDATZ: It was a jaw-dropping disclosure that Signal group thread where top administration officials discussed sensitive military plans in a group chat that included The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg inadvertently added to the group by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz who, like the rest of the administration, has tried mightily to brush the controversy aside.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RADDATZ (voice-over): This week, the Trump administration downplaying, deflecting, and at times outright dismissing an extraordinary national security breach.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: There was no harm done because the attack was unbelievably successful that night.

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Nobody was texting war plans.

RADDATZ (voice-over): The messages at the heart of the group chat on the commercial messaging app Signal contained detailed attack plans from Defense Secretary Hegseth two-and-a-half hours before U.S. forces launched airstrikes on targets in Yemen. 'Team Update' Hegseth wrote, weather is favorable. Just confirmed with Centcom, we are a go for mission launch. Hegseth then detailing the sequencing hour by hour.

12:15 ET, F-18s launch first strike package.

13:45 F-18 first strike window starts, target terrorist is at his known location, so should be on time. Also strike drones launch, MQ-9s, more F-18 launch, second strike package.

Then telling the group that at 14:15, strike drones on target, adding this is when the first bombs will definitely drop.

Hegseth still insisting that he did nothing wrong.

HEGSETH: There's no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths.

RADDATZ (voice-over): But for this operation, there was only one plausible F-18 unit and only one plausible location. The USS Truman, a carrier in the Red Sea, which did indeed carry out the attacks.

HEGSETH: Thank you very much. We're heading off (inaudible).

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Secretary, you shared strike plans before they launched. Mr. Secretary, how do you swear (ph) what you said with what your messages show?

RADDATZ (voice-over): The chat group included Vice President Vance, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, among others. Throughout this week, the administration repeatedly claiming that no one shared any classified information in the group chat.

TRUMP: There was no classified information as I understand it.

RADDATZ (voice-over): Or as Marco Rubio did.

MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: Obviously, someone made a mistake -- someone made a big mistake and added a journalist.

RADDATZ (voice-over): Waltz did take responsibility for accidentally adding the reporter.

MIKE WALTZ, UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: I take full responsibility. I built the -- I built the group.

RADDATZ (voice-over): But Pete Hegseth, on an overseas trip this week, has not changed his tune no matter what the question.

HEGSETH: And I'm quite proud, quite proud of what our forces in Centcom did on that initial series of very effective and devastating strikes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RADDATZ: And joining me now to talk about this is Democratic Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Good to see you, Senator.

SEN. MARK WARNER, (D-VA) VICE CHAIR, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Good morning.

RADDATZ: There have been very strong denials from the administration that there was anything classified. So quite simply, was this classified information or not?

WARNER: Absolutely. It was of such a nature when you were doing the actual battle plans and the timing, what type of aircraft were being sent out. If you had been a traditional military officer or a CIA caseworker, and you were this sloppy and careless with this classified information, you would be fired. No doubt about it.

RADDATZ: So -- so let's talk about this though. They keep saying it was not classified. And what is the confusion there? Could Pete Hegseth have since made it unclassified?

WARNER: If --

RADDATZ: What -- or do different agencies have different classifications?

WARNER: There is no question, regardless of agency, that this was classified. And the point, what I wish Hegseth and those folks who are obfuscating, as giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think they're lying about -- they should know this is classified.

RADDATZ: You think every person who says this is lying?

WARNER: I think there is no question, when you put out time and place, and I was yesterday, down in Hampton Roads, I did two big town halls, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. There were people in the town hall who were either friends or relatives of folks who were on the Truman. The Truman is the aircraft carrier that's been deployed to the Mediterranean.

Those folks were saying, if their friends or loved ones were flying those jets and that information had been released and the Houthis were able to change their defensive posture, we could have lost American lives. And folks in Hampton Roads know that.

RADDATZ: That's a big military community which he said.

WARNER: It's a big military community. Because, again, it insults the intelligence of the American people when somebody says, oh, no, nothing classified here. And, remember, again, to add to this, this is not a one-off. In the first two weeks, they mistakenly gave up the information of about 200 CIA agents, their identities. They can't be deployed now.

In the subsequent thing the Musk boys put out a list of properties. Included on that was the -- a classified spot. And then they printed the whole budget and headcount of another agency. These are all things that are evidence of the sloppy, careless approach.

RADDATZ: I want to stick to this particular incident, and I want to talk about the Signal app in particular where this group chat started. This is what Attorney General Pam Bondi told FOX News this week. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think Signal is a very safe way to communicate. I don't think foreign adversaries are able to hack Signal, as far as I know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RADDATZ: is that true?

WARNER: Signal is safer than your normal cell phones. It is encrypted.

RADDATZ: Encrypted.

WARNER: But if Miss Bondi had looked at any of the guidance from the intelligence community, which states explicitly do not use Signal for classified information.

RADDATZ: Do you use Signal?

WARNER: I use Signal to talk to someone because it is safer. I actually encourage people to use Signal. But that still doesn't mean, because it's safer, you can put classified information. As a matter of fact, again, if Miss Bondi knew anything about her job, she would know that we have reports of China and Russia both trying to break into Signal.

RADDATZ: So you say you use it because it's safer, but what is it that you're talking about that you need to keep safe?

WARNER: My personal conversations. I'm sure your personal conversations. We know that after Salt Typhoon, China can penetrate any of those calls. So being on Signal, smarter, yes. Is it able to put classified information? Absolutely not. And, as a matter of fact, one of the things we've been asking, have we collected back the phones from these individuals to make sure there's not malware? The bad guys could put malware into your phone if they've got access even without touching it.

RADDATZ: And we don't have information. Very quickly if you can. The administration has been rightly very critical of the Biden administration on the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal but they have also asked about accountability. There was no accountability really in that either.

WARNER: Listen, I thought the withdrawal from Afghanistan was a disaster. I'm first to agree with that. We have a classic screw-up right here. If there is no accountability, not only will the military and the intel people say, why are our bosses not held to a higher standard? And then, our friends, you've read in public reporting how upset the Israelis are based upon some of their information.

RADDATZ: But should there have been accountability for Afghanistan?

WARNER: I think there should be accountability whenever there are screw-ups of that nature or this nature.

RADDATZ: OK. Thanks for joining us this morning, Senator Warner. I appreciate it.

WARNER: Thank you, Martha.

RADDATZ: As for the Republican reaction to the Signal group, it has been mostly muted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I don't think anyone should have lost their job over that because an errant number, you know, found its way onto a dialogue between leaders.

REP. MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR (R-FL): It was a mistake. I'm sure he regrets it. I'm sure he's going to be hyper-cautious next time. But give him a pass, the guy just started.

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): I fail to see what the big deal is. I mean, they're discussing among themselves.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): This was not going to lead to the apocalypse and a mistake was made, it'll be corrected. But frankly, most Americans don't care.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RADDATZ: And I'm joined now by Republican Congressman Mike Turner, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, who has already called this very concerning.

You heard what your colleagues on the Hill were saying. Is it a big deal?

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): Well, Martha, thank you for having me. Well, first off, this was a very successful operations and there were no consequences. The operation itself was not impacted, but oversight is working. The Senate Armed Services Committee, on a bipartisan basis, requested an inspector general investigation into this matter, the use of Signal, and to the issue of whether or not classified information was used, the source of the information in the Signal discussion.

And that's very important because it goes to really the heart of the source of the information and really the inconsistency across agencies as to the use of Signal and the appropriateness of the use of Signal.

RADDATZ: So -- so let me ask you specifically what I asked Senator Warner. Do you think this -- that some of those messages, particularly ones Pete Hegseth sent, were classified?

TURNER: Well, clearly, the subject matter that's being discussed, the status of ongoing military operations, should be -- and considered classified information. And the -- and it's surprising to find it in an unclassified manner, to find it in this way is surprising. It is not however war plans and at “The Atlantic” and -- and Goldberg certainly --

RADDATZ: But, is that sort of a word game in a way? They were attack plans. I mean, they said when the -- he said when the F-18s would launch, so is that, you know, war plans, attack plans?

TURNER: They weren't really attack plans. You know they were -- they were on discussions of ongoing military operations.

But in that, “The Atlantic” and Goldberg really did oversell. They really did lose some -- some credibility.

But beyond that, it does go to the issue of whether or not -- the White House has said that there was no classified information being discussed. And I think it is surprising, people are struggling with the information that's there because this information really has at its roots, you know, classified content.

RADDATZ: So -- so, you would say it is classified or not?

TURNER: I would say that the White House perhaps is being legalistic and that the -- the individuals that are discussing this information, certainly, have the ability to declassify the information. And as they made the decision to enter into a declassified conversation, it was perhaps declassified. And that's something I think that goes to --

RADDATZ: By -- by Hegseth?

TURNER: Perhaps. And that goes to the issue of the -- of perhaps what we're going to see in this Inspector General investigation that the Senate Armed Services Committee has requested. They've actually asked both the -- to look into the -- the use of Signal across agencies, but also the source of this information.

Was this information, when it was given to the individuals, classified in its -- in its nature? How was it given to them? And then what decisions were made?

Because it also goes to the issue of judgment. Was it classified when it was given to them? Did they declassify it? But also, what decisions were made, should it have been used in the Signal?

RADDATZ: So, you're saying that's possible. So, you're saying it is possible that Pete Hegseth, he wrote those messages, it was classified, and then since he said, oh, it's not classified and everyone else, it had been declassified?

TURNER: It -- it would have been within his authority. It's something the Inspector General will look at. It also goes to the issue of -- of judgment. Should this have been discussed in a Signal content?

Now, the Director of NSA in the -- in front of the Intelligence Committee of the House, in response to Representative Crow's question, did indicate, as you've asked the question, that Signal is a vulnerable platform.

Now, both China and Russia have compromised at times Signal and their -- their questions as to whether or not they would have access to the kind of -- especially with the number of people that are there, even if a journalist hadn't accidentally been placed in it, to have that number of people and with that type of conversation happening, you do have to wonder whether or not the conversation would be vulnerable.

RADDATZ: Do you think there should be some accountability? And do you have confidence in Secretary Hegseth and Mike Waltz going forward (inaudible)?

TURNER: Absolutely. Absolutely. I think they're doing an excellent job. They're incredibly important to our -- our national security. And certainly, there were no -- there was no impact on this operation. It was a great operation, and I think they're doing excellent job.

I do think though that -- that both the Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee are taking up this issue, and I think that there will be a review going forward as to whether or not Signal should be used and whether or not these types of conversations should occur.

RADDATZ: Very quickly. Do you think lives could have been lost if -- if it had gotten into the wrong hands, as Senator Warner said?

TURNER: I think this is one of the discussions that people will have as to whether or not the Signal should be used. I do think that it is a platform that can be compromised and that perhaps these type of discussions should not be used. I personally do not use Signal because of the fact that people, when they get into that platform, have a -- a -- an assumption of privacy that it just does not provide.

RADDATZ: Thank you so much for joining us this morning.

TURNER: Thank you.

RADDATZ: Appreciate it.

And for more on the politics and the efforts at damage control, I'm joined by former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Good morning, Governor.

You have seen the efforts by the administration --

CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR, ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Good morning.

RADDATZ: -- to clean this up, so to speak, deflect and dodge, and say the operation worked well, which it did. Are these efforts working?

CHRISTIE: Well, in some respects, yes, Martha, but let's get to the core of this. The administration, everyone in the administration has required to sing at one hymnal. It’s the hymnal that Donald Trump wrote back when he was a real estate tycoon in New York City. It is two words: deny and deflect.

And that's the way he's handled everything from his net worth, when he didn't like what "Forbes" wrote about him, to the value of his buildings and other properties, when he didn't like the way people talked about him publicly, and the way he acts as president.

The first thing they said was to deny -- deny there was any problem, deny there was any issue. And then when that was not effective on the pure denial, they continue to deny, butthen they deflect as well and talk about other issues.

The biggest ones have been, as you said, the success of the attack itself which was undeniably successful, but not the point. Secondly, was to talk about both the Biden administration and the horrible loss of life in Afghanistan that their operation led to back in the early part of the Biden administration and to attack Jeffrey Goldberg as a journalist, even though at the same time, they were confirming that everything he put in there in terms of the text chain was authentic.

They want to just deny and deflect, and that's what they're doing. And in some quarters, it is successful and there's some, as you can hear on this show this morning, it's not been.

RADDATZ: But do -- do you think this goes away just because of that blitz? It's -- it's really constant and it -- it -- your news stories are bound to fade away. So, does it work?

CHRISTIE: It depends on what Congress does. You know, if in fact, as Congressman Turner just said, there are some significant oversight hearings, then that will put more gasoline onto this. And I'll tell you the way you could tell if Donald Trump doesn't think it's going away, someone gets fired. If he thinks it's not going away, he'll figure the way to end it is that.

But remember the difference in this administration from the first one, Mike Flynn, who was his National Security advisor at the time, Waltz now in trouble. Mike Flynn was gone by February 13th over his failure to disclose his contacts with Russian officials during the transition. Mike Waltz, he's holding onto, I think he thinks firing Flynn back in '17 was a mistake. So if he fires Flynn or Hegseth now -- or rather Waltz or Hegseth now, you'll know that Donald Trump thinks that deny and deflect in this instance was a failure.

RADDATZ: And -- and in Trump One, you didn't have quite so many loyalists. Things are a little different now with all these loyalists. Does he just not want to have that come up again, that he fires people?

CHRISTIE: Yeah, he -- and he generally likes this group more and trusts this group more than he did in the first term. Why? Because most of the time they just say, yes, sir. Where in the first term, there were a lot of people questioning him. White House Counsel Don McGahn was one of them, who would question on a regular basis, actions like these. And you go to Pompeo at the CIA, Tillerson at State, Pompeo -- General Mattis at Defense, Bill Barr when he became the Attorney General -- those were experienced people who would question the president. Right now, you have experienced people in many instances who don't question -- don't question the president at all.

RADDATZ: OK. Thanks, Chris Christie. Coming up, the vice president left the scandal in D.C. behind this week, traveling to Greenland, the Arctic territory Donald Trump would like to claim. We'll go live from Greenland when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RADDATZ: Next, our Terry Moran is in Greenland following Vice President J.D. Vance on his trip to the Danish-owned territory. Plus, reaction from former NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We need Greenland for national security and even international security, and we're working with everybody involved to try to get it.

I think that's why NATO might have to get involved in a way because we really need Greenland for national security.

I think Greenland is going to be something that maybe is in our future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RADDATZ: President Trump has made acquiring the Danish-owned territory of Greenland a top priority, saying the U.S. cannot live without it.

So, J.D. Vance did a scouting tour this week, and our senior national correspondent Terry Moran was there and covered it all.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TERRY MORAN, ABC NEWS SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This week a historic and fraught trip to Greenland. Vice President J.D. Vance becoming the highest ranking U.S. official ever to visit Greenland, leading a delegation to the U.S. Space Force base far above the Arctic serial dubbed “the top of the world”.

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We need to ensure that America is leading in the Arctic.

MORAN: Vance's mission here, push President Trump's expansionist ambition to get U.S. control of Greenland, which is a part of Denmark, a U.S. ally.

The president again this week declaring --

TRUMP: I think we'll go as far as we have to go. We need Greenland and the world needs us to have Greenland.

MORAN: The vice president here echoing Trump's concerns that Russia and China are expanding their military presence in the Arctic.

VANCE: What is the alternative to give up the North Atlantic? To give up the Arctic to China? To Russia?

We have no other option. We need to take a significant position in Greenland.

MORAN: And Vance slammed the Danish government on Danish territory.

VANCE: Our message to Denmark is very simple. You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland.

MORAN: Trump also says he wants Greenland in part for its resources.

There are riches in this wild land, especially the rare earth minerals, very difficult to mine in this environment, but the sky is the limit for their value.

All of this has Greenlanders anxious, even fearful.

How would you say people are responding to the vice president's visit?

MASAANA EGEDE, SERMITSIAQ CEO & EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Well, quite negatively, to be honest. People are afraid here in Greenland. As I talk to people, people are actually sleepless about this. Is he going to strangle us economically? Is he going to put troops on the ground?

MORAN: The vice president sought to assuage those fears.

VANCE: We do not think that military force is ever going to be necessary.

MORAN: But hours after Vance's remarks, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posting this video on x, celebrating the U.S. military control and defense of Greenland during World War II.

NARRATOR: While Germany controlled Europe, the Nazis set their sights on the Arctic. Greenland became an unwitting combatant, and the United States stepped in, not to conquer but to protect.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MORAN (on camera): That video seems to have backfired with many Greenlanders who sense a threat in it. And even this weekend, President Trump talking about using the military to get what he wants here saying, quote, I think there's a good possibility we could do it without military force, but adding, I don't take anything off the table -- Martha.

RADDATZ: Our thanks to Terry up there in the frigid cold.

And I’m joined now by retired Admiral James Stavridis, who served as supreme allied commander of NATO. He's the author of the new book, “The Admiral's Bookshelf”.

And that's quite a bookshelf you got. You said 5,000 books there. But let's -- let's get to Greenland.

You commanded that base that J.D. Vance toured, as -- as part of your job as U.S.-European commander.

How important is that base to Greenland, to our national security?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Absolutely crucial, and it's parked geographically and guards the approaches to the North Atlantic. Meaning, it can look at any kind of air track coming, notably from Russia. It can help track submarines going south from Russian waters. It is absolutely crucial to U.S. national security and our presence in the Arctic.

RADDATZ: Well, you've listened to President Trump. You saw J.D. Vance up there. You see how they are handling -- President Trump hasn't ruled out military intervention.

Is there -- do we have to have it? And is there a different way that they could have approached this?

STAVRIDIS: The right approach would be not to send the 82nd Airborne up there. Send up the secretary of the treasury, send up the commandant of the coast guard, work with them in a way that makes it a win-win outcome. That means working with Denmark, with the Greenlanders themselves, and offering them perhaps the kind of free association we have with the Marshall Islands in the Pacific.

At the end of the day, Martha, sometimes how you go about doing something is the most crucial part of it. No military intervention but plenty of economic incentives.

RADDATZ: In -- in your former jobs, of course, you worked with allies. How would you describe given -- I'm sure you've seen what J.D. Vance said on the Signal app and Pete Hegseth on the Signal app, calling Europe pathetic freeloaders.

How do you think our relationship with Europe is right now?

STAVRIDIS: It's deteriorating and my networks, which are deep as you would imagine after four years as supreme allied commander of NATO, have lit up roughly since early February, with the vice president's speech at the Munich Security Conference. What they all heard on the Signal chat was just the raw, unvarnished slam. That doesn't help our relationships.

And final thought, Martha. This is an intelligence failure. It will also lead to our allies being less inclined to share their high-grade intelligence with us if they think we can't protect it properly.

RADDATZ: Admiral, you've had so many important jobs over the years, including senior military assistant to Donald Rumsfeld.

So, when you look at what happened with that Signal app, do you think that could have put lives at risk?

STAVRIDIS: I have no doubt that it could have. Anytime you reveal tactical information, you don't know where it ends up. Potentially, Russia, China, could they talk to Iran, which could talk to the Houthis -- absolutely, it would put lives at risk.

RADDATZ: Do you think there should be accountability?

STAVRIDIS: I believe that's up to the Commander in Chief himself, the president. I think what there should be immediately is a thorough public and transparent investigation. Where are those cell phones now? What other information, what other conversations were conducted upon them? We have got a lot of disclosed information out there, big decisions ahead. Let's start with a thorough investigation.

RADDATZ: Admiral, it's always great to see you, and good luck with the new book. Thanks so much, this morning. We're back with the roundtable in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RADDATZ: And we're back now with the Roundtable. Former DNC Chair, Donna Brazile; Former RNC Chair and Former Trump White House Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus; and David Sanger, White House and National Security Correspondent for The New York Times. Good morning, everybody.

Donna, I -- I want to get something we haven't talked about today, which are those key elections in -- in Florida and Wisconsin --

DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER DNC CHAIR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah.

RADDATZ: -- this week. A real indicator of how people feel about Donald Trump's first hundred days. We're not quite there yet. Wisconsin is the state supreme court, Florida two Congressional districts. Elon Musk heavily going after that Wisconsin election. Donna?

BRAZILE: Well, as you know, Martha, just a -- a week ago, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Democrats flipped that seat. It was a state seat. It allowed the Democrats to take control of the Pennsylvania legislature. I think this seat in Wisconsin, the supreme court seat, it is a bellwether, it is a test. It's a critical seat because it's not just about the amount of money Elon Musk is able to pour, because everybody know he got more money, this is about voting rights, about abortion rights. It's about collective bargaining. The people of Wisconsin understand what's at stake and their votes will not be bought. Now, those two Congressional seats down in Florida, they're ruby red seats, but I do believe --

RADDATZ: Mike Waltz’, Matt Gaetz’ seats?

BRAZILE: That's right. They're -- they're competitive. And you know why they're competitive? Because voters are fed up with Trump and Musk, and I do believe that the Democrats are watching these seats closely, and there may be an upset in why those --

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: Elon Musk is definitely watching that with giveaways and the Florida race as well, a little tighter.

REINCE PRIEBUS, ABC NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: A little tighter but they're not -- there are going to be blow-outs, Martha. The reality is, back to Wisconsin, my home state, there couldn't be any more at stake than this election. If you think about Wisconsin, we've got redistricting. That means with the slim majority in the House, two seats could flip the other direction.

The reason is for the viewers is that there's a 4-3 liberal majority in the Supreme Court. And with this seat, if the conservative Brad Schimel wins, there'd be a 4-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. All of those reforms of Scott Walker, the protests, the years of changes in the laws are at stake. If you remember a great governor by the name of Tommy Thompson started the first private school choice in the state of Wisconsin.

Everything that's taken, here's what it comes down to, it comes down to whether Trump voters show up, and the most important thing that's happened over the last week is Donald Trump came out, endorsed Schimel. It was risky because it's a tight race, and the Republicans have turned that endorsement into a bonanza. So we'll see if Trump voters come out, Schimel will win.

RADDATZ: I'm going to make a very quick turn here from that which is very important, to another very important topic this week, and that is tariffs, David Sanger. President Trump telling Kristen Welker today the auto tariffs are permanent and he couldn't care less if companies raise prices because people will then buy American-made cars. You heard Diane Swonk at the top of the show.

But how do you think this plays out? The economy, he's not doing so well in polls with the economy. Can people ride it out?

DAVID SANGER, NEW YORK TIMES WHITE HOUSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: It depends on how long it lasts and so the most important thing he said is that first line, which is basically that these are permanent. Most presidents have used tariffs as a negotiating tool, right? You put them on. You're trying to solve a particular problem. The Chinese are subsidizing solar panels. You put tariffs on the solar panels to be able to go work a deal out.

That's not the way Donald Trump thinks about these. He thinks tariffs are an end to the mean, right? That they are themselves a way to get foreign powers to pay the cost of running the U.S. government, instead of taxes. If you don't believe me, just go back to his inaugural address where he hails President McKinley. Most Americans haven't been thinking of McKinley for some time. It's a very 1890s view of the way the economy operates without paying attention to what you get from software and services and things he's not tariffing.

RADDATZ: And I'm going to be just like Donald Trump and rapid-fire here. One issue after the other. And I want to move to deportation.

Donna, we saw that video, that very stunning video of the young woman, the PhD candidate at Tufts University in Boston, get arrested. The administration saying she was a supporter of Hamas. There was an op-ed that she was part of -- she does not mention Hamas. She mentions the Palestinian people, Donna.

BRAZILE: Look, I don't know what the strategy is. It's like tariff. I think Donald Trump makes it up every day because he wants to get everything done quickly and forget about making mistakes because, of course, he's above the law. This is absolutely wrong. These individuals deserve due process. They deserve to have an opportunity to go to court, to make their case. If the administration has evidence that they have violated the law in any way, fine. Prove it. Prove it in the courts.

PRIEBUS: Well, they are going to prove it. I mean, the fact of the matter is the president wants to reshape the American economy, wants to bring manufacturing back to the United States, so we're making stuff here instead of China. It's a hard process. I'm not suggesting it's easy. That's what he wants to do. I think the American people are, at least in the election, they saw that.

But as far as these students, I mean, the fact is, they are here through a temporary permission to be here. They are students. They are taking spots up in our universities that our kids can't even get into, by the way.

BRAZILE: We're a nation of laws.

PRIEBUS: And they can't -- listen.

BRAZILE: We're a nation of laws.

PRIEBUS: And they will prove it.

BRAZILE: And if they did something wrong, take them to court.

PRIEBUS: Nation of laws but they're not U.S. citizens.

BRAZILE: And give them their rights.

PRIEBUS: You can't shut down buildings, make people feel unsafe. Guess what, the American people are going to support this just like deported gangs in Venezuela.

RADDATZ: David, I want to turn to David on this, because immigration was a huge win for Donald Trump. It was not a win for Joe Biden and his administration.

SANGER: That's right.

RADDATZ: So people look at that and say, his supporters say, look at that, he's done it. Crossing at the border is way down. But is this possibly, with these students, a step too far?

SANGER: It seems like a different category. So there are illegal immigrants. If you're here illegally, no question about it.

RADDATZ: And by the way, we don't know the full story here either -- we can say that.

SANGER: Right, we should say that. If you're here illegally though, I don't think people fundamentally have difficulty with deporting folks. If you are here on a legal student visa, as it appears this young woman at Tufts was, then the question is, can the Secretary of State simply designate that your presence is adverse to the United States? Well, clearly, legally, he can. The second question is, should you do that without some process -- some due process here? And that's what is getting sorted through.

When you read the editorial, it looks like what they're doing is throwing her out for a view that she took, that you might agree with or might disagree with, but that would have First Amendment protections if you were a citizen, or it would have First Amendment protections if you were a permanent resident. She was neither one of those. That's the core question.

RADDATZ: OK. And Reince, I want to quickly go to you on the Signal group chat.

PRIEBUS: Oh, sure.

RADDATZ: You've talked to some people about this. How do you think at this point, President Trump is actually feeling about all this? Is Mike Waltz safe? Is Pete Hegseth safe?

PRIEBUS: Well, first of all, most political scandals usually don't take people down. It's political opponents that take people down. But in your particular case, a question. No, I don't -- I don't think the president is happy about it. I've -- I know that first of all, it was a mistake to use Signal, number one. Pick up the secure line, go talk to people in a Situation Room. Once the people do things around the president that either embarrass -- or embarrassing or a mistake, that person now has a target on their back.

RADDATZ: Right.

PRIEBUS: They have to be just about perfect from now on --

RADDATZ: Mike Waltz and Pete Hegseth?

PRIEBUS: And the president is going to be -- Well, all -- yeah. The president is going to be watching you now. I've lived through this and the president isn't just --

RADDATZ: I know.

PRIEBUS: -- whistling past the graveyard here thinking this is just no big deal. The president cares about this stuff and he's watching. And now, it's very difficult to climb out of that hole.

RADDATZ: So it is definitely something to watch. We're out of time, guys. Sorry about that. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RADDATZ: And that's all for us today. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us. The rest of us are all going to go out and check out Washington, D.C.'s gorgeous cherry blossoms. And we'll check out "World News Tonight." Have a great day everyone.