Intelligence Officials Testify, Trump's Auto Tariffs, DOGE Access

A group chat among intelligence officials discussing Yemen war plans is now public.

It is completely outrageous to me that administration officials come before us today with impunity. Did Trump administration officials put national security at risk by using the messaging app Signal? I'm Michelle Martin, that's A.
Martinez, and this is Up First from NPR News. President Trump slaps 25% tariffs on imported cars, saying it will boost U.S.
manufacturing.

I think our automobile business will flourish like it's never flourished before.

But will it really create jobs or just raise prices?

And a single federal employee has access to millions of Americans' personal data.

Why are the courts pushing back against Doge for having so much control? Stay with us. We've got all the news you need to start your day.
Everyone can now read that group chat among senior national security officials who are discussing airstrikes in Yemen. But that doesn't mean the story is over.
Democrats say they still have questions about how the Trump administration is handling national security. Republicans, meanwhile, say it's time to focus on what they are calling a successful bombing campaign against the Houthis in Yemen.
For more, we're joined by NPR's Greg Myrie. Greg, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee really grilled top national security officials yesterday.
What should we take away from that? Yeah, shortly before the hearing, the Atlantic Magazine published details of the group chat on March 15th among the top security officials. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave the timing for the attacks two hours before they began, and he laid out a timeline for the warplanes and the drones and how they would take off and win.
Now, Democrats said this was a major security failure, providing details of an imminent military strike on the publicly available messaging app Signal. And as we know, they included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic.
Here's Democrat Jason Crow of Colorado, who served as an army ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is completely outrageous to me that administration officials come before us today with impunity.
Nobody is willing to come to us and say this was wrong. This was a breach of security and we won't do it again.
So how are Trump administration officials responding? Well, CIA Director John Ratcliffe essentially said there's just nothing to see here.

I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information.

It was permissible to do so.

I didn't transfer any classified information.

And Defense Secretary Hegseth, writing on X,

was also adamant that there was no classified information released, and other officials have said the same. Now, President Trump has been saying the same thing.
He was a bit more ambiguous when asked Wednesday evening if he still thought that no classified information was disclosed. He said, quote, that's what I've heard.
I don't know. I'm not sure.
You have to ask the various people involved. All right.
So if there's no formal investigation, I mean, what's going to happen now? Well, Democrats say they'll keep pressing for details in this particular case, like whether national security officials have been using Signal for other chats because, you know, it's more convenient, though clearly not as secure as government communication networks. More broadly, the Democrats are questioning Trump's foreign policy.
Trump has boasted about efforts to arrange ceasefires in Gaza and the Ukraine war, but the Gaza ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has collapsed. Russia and Ukraine are still attacking each other despite U.S.
mediation efforts. So these haven't been quick successes that Trump had hoped for.
All right. So to the bombing campaign in Yemen that the Trump administration say was successful, enough evidence so far to say that? Not yet.
Now, the U.S. forces have bombed the Houthis now for nearly two weeks, but we're getting relatively little information.
Trump's team says the campaign will be much more robust than it was under the Biden administration and that they'll halt the Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea, which the Houthis describe as solidarity with the Palestinians. But the Houthis have proved very tough, and it's just not clear whether a U.S.
bombing campaign, even if it's sustained for a while, can end these attacks and return shipping to normal levels. All right, that's NPR's Greg Myrie.
Greg, thanks. Sure thing, eh? And we'll note here that NPR CEO Catherine Marr chairs the board of the nonprofit Signal Foundation.
President Trump announced that he's imposing a 25% tariff on all car imports. He says the money collected will boost government revenues and encourage automakers to build cars and parts in the U.S.
rather than import them. I think our automobile business will flourish like it's never flourished before.
But auto service providers like Cox Automotive estimate that that could add thousands of dollars to car prices if the tariffs go through. And stocks of automakers declined in the hours before the announcement, underscoring the uncertainty Trump's trade policy is having on markets.
NPR White House correspondent Franco Ordonez is here to tell us all about this. So Franco, let's start off with the goals of these tariffs and the concerns they're raising.
Yeah, A, Trump says these tariffs will go into effect next week. Now they apply to both autos and auto parts.
Trump is kind of painting this as a way to jumpstart the auto industry and raise tens of billions of dollars in revenue. He says auto companies, even foreign ones, will build more operations in the U.S.
or expand existing ones. And he's criticized those who took operations in the past out of the U.S.
So we'll effectively be charging a 25% tariff. But if you build your car in the United States, there is no tariff.
And what that means is a lot of foreign car companies, a lot of companies are going to be in great shape because they've already built their plant, but their plants are under utilized. So they'll be able to expand them inexpensively and quickly.
But as Michelle noted, the move is also raising a lot of concerns. Let's talk about those concerns.
Who are the winners and the losers here? Well, one of the big winners are the auto unions. The United Auto Workers Union, for example, is praising this decision, saying it's time to, quote, end the free trade disaster.
But the big three automakers, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis are very concerned. You know, they have production spread out across the world, including Canada and Mexico.
And the cars and the parts are going to be tariffed. You know, they've raised big concerns in the past when these threats were posed.
And a group that represents foreign automakers like BMW, Honda has also raised concerns that it's all just going to make it more expensive to produce cars and lead to higher prices. So how do these fit into Trump's larger trade policy? Yeah, Trump's already imposed a bunch of other tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as other goods from China, Canada and Mexico.
And these new tariffs come just a week ahead of his promised announcement of reciprocal tariffs on imports, which he says are, you know, furthest countries that impose tariffs on the U.S. But he did yesterday back off a bit on how tough those reciprocal tariffs will be.
Yesterday, he said people may be surprised that they're going to be more lenient than they once feared. He also did say, though, to expect tariffs on lumber and pharmaceuticals.
Yeah, you know, it does seem like President Trump loves tariffs or even the threat of tariffs. Economists don't seem to share that view.
How do you square those two things? Yeah, he really does love tariffs. He says that all the time.
I mean, he argues that they're an important tool to be used for leverage on things like national security and other U.S. interests.
But you're absolutely right. Most economists say tariffs raise prices for consumers, and that could hurt the economy.
Trump often uses them as a negotiating tool, and that has really made economists even more worried. And that's because of the uncertainty that they cause.
And you see that

in the markets. Now, in some cases, he says these tariffs will go away if countries do things that

he wants, like help him with immigration. But this time, he says he's serious and that these

car tariffs are here to stay. All right, we'll see.
That's NPR White House correspondent,

Franco Ordonez. Thanks a lot.
Thanks, Abe. Fewer than 50 people have the highest level of access to the Social Security Administration databases with hundreds of millions of people's personal and private financial information.
But only one person also has access to federal student loan data and the government's human resources files. That's what NPR's Stephen Fowler found after reviewing thousands of pages of federal court records in lawsuits challenging the Department of Government Efficiency team's access to data.
He's been digging into these court cases. He's here now, Stephen.
So tell us about this person with all that access and why it's a big deal. Well, court filings show it's a Doge employee named Akash Boba.
He's one of a few people that's been given carte blanche access to see all of these different sensitive financial and personal data repositories across multiple federal agencies. A, it is normal for a small group of employees to be able to have complete access to these databases.
And Trump's Doge executive order did direct agencies to set up teams to look through the data to find, quote, waste, fraud, and abuse. But these sources are all supposed to be compartmentalized.
The people who access Social Security's master beneficiary record are not the people who can see everything about student loan borrowers, are not the people who can go through the government's HR files until now. So I know there have been lots of lawsuits around Doge and what it has access to.
So what sort of legal and privacy concerns do these suits raise? So piecing together all of the different lawsuits and combining what we know from there, there's a few different buckets that all point towards this. Doge giving conflicting answers about what data is accessed, who has that accessed, and most importantly, why.
One, records show these staffers were sometimes brought on board without having proper training on handling personally identifiable information. Two, there have been filings where the government admits it can't account for when or how these DOGE staffers access the data, and that also includes a revelation that one person sent personally identifiable information to other government employees outside the agency.
Which brings us to three, it's something called the Privacy Act that's in place to ensure information included in these databases is not disclosed to anybody who does not need to know. The government's response has been, Doge needs to know to be able to find waste, fraud, and abuse, which they haven't found yet either.
And the White House never responded to our questions about whether Doge was following privacy laws or whether this level of access should concern Americans. Okay, so how are the courts then responding to the Trump administration's arguments? They largely have not seen why Doge needs everything everywhere all at once instead of a more tailored approach.
I mean, one judge even called it like hitting a fly with a sledgehammer shortly before blocking Doge from Social Security data. Another judge warned that, quote, a real possibility exists that sensitive information has already been shared outside the Treasury Department.
And on Monday, a different judge temporarily halted Doge from accessing data on millions of union members through the Office of Personnel Management, Treasury, and Education Departments, finding that the Doge employees had, quote, no need to know the vast amount of data shared. There's more than a dozen cases dealing with access right now, and these rulings aren't the end-all be-all right now, but it's one of many things about government restructuring we're keeping track of in coming weeks.
All right, that's NPR's Stephen Fowler in Atlanta. Stephen, thanks.
Thank you. And that's Up First for Thursday, March 27th.
I'm Amy Martinez. And I'm Michelle Martin.
The NPR app lets you keep public radio in your pocket. You'll find a mix of local, national, and international news, plus the best podcasts from the NPR network.
Download the NPR app in your app store today. Today's episode of Up First was edited by Andrew Sussman, Roberto Rampton, Brett Neely, Arzu Razvani, and Mohamed Elbardisi.
It was produced by Ziyad Butch, Nia Dumas, and Christopher Thomas. We get engineering support from Nisha

Hyness, and our technical director is Carly Strange. Join us again tomorrow.