Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
White House Denies It's Looking To Replace Hegseth Amid New Scandal; Hegseth's Ex-Official Blasts His Leadership In Month From Hell; Harvard Sues Trump Administration Over Funding Freeze; White House Figures Out A Way To Convince More Couples To Have More Children; Satire Published In "The New York Times" Has Larry David Assuming The Role Of Bill Maher And Adolf Hitler Standing In For Donald Trump. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired April 21, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, CYA. The president says he's happy with Pete Hess's performance as morale in the Pentagon craters and the defense secretary texts his way into another scandal.
Plus, Harvard versus Trump, the Ivy League institution sues the president over his campaign to commandeer its curriculum and starve the school of federal funds.
Also, curbing Bill Maher's enthusiasm. Larry David mocks Maher's meeting with Trump by imagining a dinner with Hitler.
And the White House goes shopping for incentives to fuel the next baby boom.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Neera Tanden, Congressman Mike Lawler, Alencia Johnson and Dan Abrams.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America is talking about, the horrible, no good, very bad month at the Pentagon. Tonight, the Washington rumor mill is running amuck with talk of whether Pete Hegseth's days are numbered. He is the common denominator in headline after headline of snafus inside of the defense department.
It started with this, that Atlantic piece clueing the world in on a not so secret Signal chat to coordinate a strike on Yemen, a group message that inadvertently included a journalist. And there was also the much maligned, and maybe it happened and maybe it did, briefing for Elon Musk on China war plans. There are the dismissals of senior members of the Pentagon leadership over sustained infighting. There are also deep concerns over leaks from military planning to that classified Musk briefing. And now there is another Signal chat that detailed strike plans this time with he's family members.
Now, this is all coming as the top Pentagon spokesperson who quit just last week penned an op-ed calling out Hegseth's leadership and the, quote, month from hell.
But the man in the middle won't look in the mirror, and it is -- and he's blaming the media for all the smoke and not the fires that he's accused of setting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: This is what the media does. They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations. It's not going to work with me because we're changing the Defense Department, putting the Pentagon back in the hands of warfighters and anonymous smears from disgruntled former employees on old news doesn't matter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Disgruntled former employees, smears, he's denying the chaos, but none of these people actually are anonymous. Just tonight, there was -- released an interview between Dan Caldwell, one of the people who was very close to Pete Hegseth until recently, who was pushed out talking about what he describes as chaos in the Defense Department. Listen,
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN CALDWELL, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PETE HEGSETH: Just awful and whatnot and -- but at the end of the day, putting all this aside, Pete Hegseth needs to be a successful secretary of defense, and the entire Department of Defense cannot be continued to be consumed by chaos.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But, Congressman, hasn't even been a hundred days, and it's chaos already?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Well, this according to obviously a staffer who has been let go. I think, obviously, when you look at the dynamic where multiple people were accused of leaking classified information to the press, that obviously is disconcerting. And, you know, after an investigation, people were let go. When I look at the situation right now from all of the operations that have taken place, they have thus far been successful. And that is where my focus is on.
Obviously, anytime you're dealing with bureaucracy and personalities, there can be this type of infighting, we saw that obviously in the reports. But when I juxtaposed the operations thus far that have taken place in this administration versus, say, the disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan, in which nobody was fired, nobody was held accountable for the death of 13 US service members, creating 13 gold star families.
[22:05:17]
Kamala Harris couldn't even be bothered to meet with these families. The fact is those same people that are demanding Pete Hegseth's resignation never said one word about Lloyd Austin in the disaster that was his Department of Defense.
NEERA TANDEN, CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND: What about your fellow congressman member who's a Republican, Don Bacon? He's not a Democrat. He wasn't involved in Biden administration. He called for the resignation. I think maybe he called for his resignation or his resignation based on the fact that it's not people who've been fired. It's his principal spokesperson taking to the pages of Politico talking about chaos the month from now. He was not fired. He actually just decided to quit because he believes --
LAWLER: He was given the opportunity to resign and he took it.
TANDEN: That's not what he says. He says he decided to quit on his own.
LAWLER: I'm glad he believe everything that is said by a Republican staffer all of a sudden.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I'm wondering, though -- but I'm wondering, Congressman, why it doesn't bother you that. All these people are saying the same thing. The only person not saying it is Pete Hegseth, who, by the way, when you talk about leaks to the media, he is at the center of the Signal chat, not one but two Signal chats now? Is that not concerning to you?
LAWLER: Well, first of all, the Biden administration's CISA put out guidance urging members of the Department of Defense and the intelligence communities to use Signal.
PHILLIP: For classified information?
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I don't think they're using Signal for classified information, Congressman. You know that.
LAWLER: First of all, I don't imply that because I didn't say that.
PHILLIP: Okay. So, what does that have to do with anything?
LAWLER: Because multiple people use CISIN, including nearly -- sorry, use Signal, including nearly every single member of Congress.
PHILLIP: The context here is about classified information. That's a change of the subject.
LAWLER: Right. But -- no, it's not a change of the subject. The bottom line is Signal is used for communication at all times. This second chat that is being referred to, have you seen any of the contents of it?
PHILLIP: Would you like The New York Times to publish it?
LAWLER: If anybody would like to show the contents, sure.
PHILLIP: I think the premise is that --
LAWLER: No. But this is the problem. You automatically jump to the end result. But the bottom line is you have Signal, which is used widely, widely by elected officials, by members of Congress, by government officials all the time.
PHILLIP: Congressman, I want to move on because -- but I think we should just be super clear. Signal is not allowed to be used for classified information. Everybody understands that.
LAWLER: Nobody said that it is.
PHILLIP: So, when the defense -- hold on, Congressman. When the defense secretary used it to post the details of a classified operation in Signal, that is not an approved use of Signal. Everybody understands that. Dan, you want to say something?
DAN ABRAMS, FOUNDER, MEDIAITE YOUTUBE: It seems to me that there's certain things we should accept and decide sort of how bad this is, right? It sure seems like it happened, right? The idea that it didn't happen, it doesn't even seem to me that Pete Hegseth said is saying it didn't happen. He's just attacking the media for reporting.
PHILLIP: Okay. (INAUDIBLE), yes.
ABRAMS: Yes. But let's assume that this happened, right, that the relatives were on the Signal, they shouldn't have done it, right? I think everyone can probably agree, if you're going to be reasonable about this, this is not the way that he should have been talking about classified information or exactly what these plans were.
Okay. Now, the question is, what should happen as a result of that? If you are someone who didn't think Pete Hegseth said should have ever been in the Department of Defense right now, you're yelling and you're screaming and you're saying, I want him out. He's done. He should be finished. The truth is you wanted him finished before anyway. It's not that this suddenly changed your mind. That's why you're calling for it.
But there's also the hypocrisy for me of this, which is the same people who are defending Pete Hegseth are also a lot of the same people who were yelling and screaming about Hillary Clinton's emails for years, years, and about the dangers, the possible risks. And you know what? They were right. They were right, that they were risks there. But there are also risks here.
And to pretend that in one case, well, you know, in that case there was no big deal. That's the part that makes me nuts is the hypocrisy of not being able to say this was wrong. This is wrong. Now, let's talk about what should be the remedy.
PHILLIP: Scott?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes I agree. I think they've admitted since this story broke several weeks ago, that it was a mistake. And this Signal chat, the second one, appears to have taken place around the same time as the first one we obsessed over. So, my --
PHILLIP: And Hegseth also has not acknowledged that it was a mistake. He has blamed the media --
JENNINGS: The White House has and the president has.
PHILLIP: -- for this whole scandal.
JENNINGS: I mean, the president and his senior staff has acknowledged that.
PHILLIP: And, by the way, it's also a mistake that would carry criminal penalties for most people.
JENNINGS: So, what I would like to know is what has the White House done in the interim period here, in the intervening period since the first story broke, to make it clear that Signal is not good to use for this?
[22:10:03]
That's number one.
Number two, I'll also give you a little political reality and based on the people I've talked to in the White House and around the president today. They're not going to get rid of Pete Hegseth over Signal. Number one, they spent an enormous amount of political capital to get him confirmed in the first place. And to throw someone that they spent this much capital on overboard within the first a hundred days over something they don't think is that big of a deal --
PHILLIP: I don't think it's just -- I think at this point, it's beyond signal, right? Just for the people who did not see this op-ed from the weekend, the former Pentagon spokesperson said this last month has been a full blown meltdown at the Pentagon. There are likely more shoes to drop in short order with even bigger bombshell stories coming this week.
Key Pentagon reporters have been telling sources that privately, unfortunately, after a terrible month, the Pentagon focus is no longer on warfighting but on endless drama.
He says warfighting almost every other word, but what's happening, apparently, according to the people who, by the way, he hired, is that's not what the focus has been on.
ALENCIA JOHNSON, AUTHOR, FLIP THE TABLES: You know, it's -- we're talking about all of this, but this chaos is actually par for the course in a Trump administration. The thing that really concerns me here, and we've been talking about this since the first Signal chat, is that, politics aside, the national security risk and like the safeguarding of our nation is something that both sides of the aisle should agree on. And to this point that you're making about owning up to a mistake, the fact that he cannot talk about the fact that this was a security breach, it was classified information, I should not have, you know, used Signal, the fact that you can't even do that to push back on some of the critics, me being one of them, a lot of Democrats being one of them, is actually showing I think kind of weak leadership.
And so it's really frustrating to see this point of hypocrisy that we're seeing, as well as I think we're going to continue to see more chaos coming out of this Pentagon, unfortunately.
TANDEN: I mean, I think the bottom line here is that if a ranked soldier had these many problems, or a military leader or a general, they would be out of their job immediately. And because he is a political leader and the president has political goals, the person who is the boss of the generals and the commanders and the soldiers gets away with one, two, three, four, five mistakes. And these are serious things, like soldiers would be fired for these kinds of activities and this level of chaos. I think that's the basic accountability that people are sort of wondering about.
LAWLER: And yet there was no accountability when 13 U.S. service members died. And you never once spoken out about it. You were the staff director. Why don't you say director when that happened right after you were -- why don't you speak out about what a disaster that was. You don't. The fact is --
TANDEN: Can I just finish?
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Let me let her respond to you since you put those allegations out there.
TANDEN: Yes. Sir, I think we can say that it was a mistake what happened in Afghanistan. But two wrongs, don't make a right.
LAWLER: WAS anybody held accountable for it?
TANDEN: If people should have been held accountable, then don't you think they should be held accountable now? Why is he answering no one --
LAWLER: You're seeing people fired for leaking classified information.
TANDEN: Not the guy you just said.
LAWLER: And the fact is --
JENNINGS: Do you honestly believe one where 13 people died versus 0 are comparable?
TANDEN: No. PHILLIP: Hold on. I just want to clear up one thing though. None of these people were on the Signal chat or are being accused actually of leaking classified information.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let's just talk about one thing at a time here. The big no --
LAWLER: Right. But you're demanding accountability and I'm saying there is zero accountability when people actually died. And that's the big problem.
PHILLIP: I think that accountability question is directed at Neera. What I'm talking about is the Signal issue. We know that there was classified information leak because we've seen the signals. We know who was in that chat. None of those people have been held accountable. And beyond that, there has been no investigation. In fact, the White House said there will not be one. That is to the --
LAWLER: So, I said when it --
PHILLIP: Here's the contrast, Congressman.
LAWLER: They should not be using --
PHILLIP: Since you want to talk about Afghanistan, there was an investigation into what happened in Afghanistan.
LAWLER: Yes, we did.
PHILLIP: You did it, but also the Pentagon did it too, okay? So, there was an -- and the State Department did it. So, there were multiple investigations. So, I take your point that the Afghanistan situation is something that you think people should have been held accountable for, but there was an investigation. I think it would be misleading to --
TANDEN: You're a leader now. You can investigate. You should investigate now.
LAWLER: Yes. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, you're investigate the disaster in Afghanistan.
TANDEN: Yes, but you're not investigating your own guy.
LAWLER: And, again, nobody's the difference was ever held accountable. I said very clearly.
PHILLIP: Can I let Dan get --
LAWLER: I said very clearly that the Signal chat was wrong, that they should not be discussing either classified or sensitive material --
TANDEN: But you're not investigating.
LAWLER: -- when it happened. I said they should make immediate changes to make sure that it never happens again.
PHILLIP: Let me let Dan -- hold on, Neera.
[22:15:01]
Let me let Dan --
ABRAMS: (INAUDIBLE) get real trouble in that all Hegseth is saying. And Scott's right about sort of the White House, but Hegseth himself isn't saying this was a mess up, but we're going to make sure it never happens again. And instead he's saying, oh, the media, they're just trying to get us again. It's like, well, wait a second. Yes, that's true, but it's also true that you did something that you should be expressing some level of regret for, and you should be promising the American people it won't happen again.
And here's what I'm going to assure you, that it was a mistake that will never be repeated. And he's not saying it.
LAWLER: They should acknowledge it, and the White House did.
PHILLIP: Let's leave it there for now. We've got much more ahead more breaking news tonight, Harvard University now suing the Trump administration, becoming the first university to hit back. Why academic freedom is at stake.
Plus, Larry David mocking Bill Maher by imagining having dinner with Hitler. We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, a banner case just got added to the federal docket. Harvard is suing the Trump administration, accusing the president and his people of breaking the law and treading on the First Amendment. Quote, the government has ceased the flow of funds to Harvard as part of its pressure campaign to force Harvard to submit to the government's control over its academic programs. That in itself violates Harvard's constitutional rights. The government says that it is freezing these funds because Harvard failed to sufficiently protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism protests last year.
But the university in this lawsuit, Dan, says this, the government has not and cannot identify a rational connection between anti-Semitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological and other research. It has frozen that aims to save American lives. They're saying that partly because the list of demands was released publicly and we know what they were asking for. And hardly any of it had to do with anti-Semitism.
ABRAMS: Look, it's going to be a strong legal case. And I think Harvard had kind of no choice here. Why? Because look what happened to Columbia, right? They started negotiating, and they're still getting their money held back. So, Harvard's position is probably like, well, you know what? We might as well go for it.
Now, just because they've got a strong legal case doesn't mean it's still not a political winner for the administration. I think it is, meaning, I think they will lose in court, but the government's going to pay for the defense, and the administration can say, we went after the Ivy League schools. Who's going to be yelling and screaming in the streets about the idea that these incredibly wealthy Ivy League schools are being targeted? But from a political perspective, I don't think he's got to lose here.
PHILLIP: Can we stay on what's right for just a second? Because I think that there is a temptation to just go all the way to like, well, it's not right, but, politically, it's great. What about what's right here? I mean, is it right for the government to say, unless we control all aspects of how you operate as a private institution, you can't get federal money for research. It's not like it's for free, right? They're giving the university money to provide services to the public good.
JENNINGS: I think it's overly broad to say they want to control every aspect of how a university operates.
PHILLIP: A lot of aspects.
JENNINGS: I do believe, I agree with Dan, the fight is worth picking if only because they do have a terrific argument on the idea that these Jewish students had their civil rights violated. I mean, Mike can probably comment on it, but we have laws in this country that the administration believes were violated as it relates to the civil rights protections that should include these Jewish students. And so --
PHILLIP: (INAUDIBLE) deal with that, A? I mean, you've been a critic of the Columbia stuff but --
ABRAMS: You don't actually believe that it's just on the anti-Semitism though. I mean, that's the thing. Come on, let's not --
JENNINGS: I said the fight is worth picking because of that, but alone. But there are other reasons to pick on Harvard. Some are political and the Ivy League in general. And some --
PHILLIP: Abrams almost all are political. I mean, come on.
JENNINGS: And some have to do with this. I think the average is sitting on a $53 billion endowment, they want another $2 to $9 billion. And at the same time, they keep turning out a bunch of professors and students who appear to be schooled in one thing, only the downfall of western civilization. Like why are we financing this?
PHILLIP: Like from cottoning and then so many others. I mean, Brett Kavanaugh. I don't know. I mean, how many conservatives does Harvard turn out?
LAWLER: I introduced the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act to enforce Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and to ensure that any institution of higher learning is actually upholding that, that we clearly define what anti-Semitism is and hold these universities and administrators accountable -- JENNINGS: Miserably.
LAWLER: -- and its responsibility to deal with that.
Now you can say, wait a minute, you're giving a private institution over a billion dollars of our taxpayer funds, and, yes, they're using a lot of it towards research. But the fact is --
PHILLIP: That's where the money is going. Where do you think the money is going, Congressman?
LAWLER: The fact is that most of these institutions want to say, oh, we're a private. But, yes, you are still required to uphold federal law, especially when you're taking federal dollars, period.
PHILLIP: Let me remind people what the demands are. Eliminate DEI programs, institute, mask bans, institute merit-based hiring and admissions reforms, reform international student admissions, reduce the power of students, faculty, and administration. They also want Harvard to open up their records and just provide carte blanche data to the federal government.
[22:25:04]
LAWLER: The mask ban has to do with these protests, the visa reforms and the international students, period.
ABRAMS: But even some folks in the administration were saying when the letter was sent, oh, you know what, you didn't really actually think they meant that, did you? Meaning, one response was, well, why didn't you call up?
PHILLIP: Remain privately because they had been negotiating.
ABRAMS: Yes. Why didn't you tell us? Why wasn't your first call to us saying, come on? It's like, whoa, you're actually conceding that this letter was nuts.
TANDEN: It was crazy. I mean, this is what I think is kind of amazing because you have the head of the Anti-Defamation League recognizing Semitism, and we should address that. But these attacks on universities, the truth is that that letter was basically saying to a private institution, the government is going to determine, you know, how you accept students, what professors, what they can teach.
And I used to live in a world where Republicans criticized government reach into decisions like that. I mean, how would people feel if a Democratic administration said to Brigham Young University, you can't have a kind of program anymore, or you have to have an external panel? Look at what you're teaching.
LAWLER: Actually, they do it in New York State. They do it in New York State. Where they go into private schools and say, you cannot touch this, that and everything.
PHILLIP: Are you talking are talking about private, like grade schools?
LAWLER: I'm talking within K-12 and higher ed.
PHILLIP: Okay. We're talking about American universities, right?
TANDEN: Private universities.
LAWLER: Right. It's all part of our education system. Universities and institutions of education what they can teach.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Let me just -- because I just want to be clear that what you're saying. You are fine with the government dictating what universities can and cannot teach, yes?
LAWLER: When you are taking federal dollars --
PHILLIP: Yes or no.
LAWLER: You have to uphold -- Abby, it's not that simple. You're taking federal --
ABRAMS: Literally, it's really not.
LAWLER: And, by the way -- no it's not. And, by the way, what it's saying is uphold -- it's saying uphold Article 6, Section 6 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on, guys. (INAUDIBLE) talking at the same time. Just give him one second to finish his thought.
LAWLER: And you are taking federal dollars or state dollars, okay, in New York State, the state is saying under the issue of, for instance, substantial equivalency, they are saying private schools must teach a substantially equivalent curriculum to the public schools. When the government -- so the government is already telling institutions what they can and cannot teach. So don't say, oh, that's just K-12. No. You are taking taxpayer money.
PHILLIP: Okay. You're --
LAWLER: You are going to be required to uphold federal and state laws.
PHILLIP: I'm going to let Alencia in. I'm going to let Alencia in. But just the point is that you are conflating two issues. You are conflating the state government saying you must educate students to a certain standard versus the federal government saying African-American history, you cannot teach Middle Eastern history. That is what we're talking about here.
Alencia, go ahead.
(CROSSTALKS)
JOHNSON: The demands are actually saying that, and it's actually breeding in this nation a space where in our education institutions, people aren't provided the information to a form their own opinions. This feels like someone said it here a political attack because it seems, if we see in a lot of polling, a lot of college educated people do not agree with some of the way in which the conservative right is going when it comes to the station. And so there's an attack on a Harvard, on a lot of these institutions where people are gaining information, understanding. There's this diversity of thinking and inclusion that I think makes this nation amazing.
LAWLER: It's not diversity that they (INAUDIBLE) at Harvard.
PHILLIP: We got to leave it here.
JOHNSON: And that's what makes our country --
PHILLIP: The White House wants -- coming up next, the White House wants you, please hear their ideas for an American baby boom.
Plus, Larry David, imagine, to take a jab at Bill Maher's MAGA outreach.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:33:59]
PHILLIP: Tonight, the birds, the bees and bonuses. The White House is trying to figure out a way to convince more couples to try. The Trump administration thinks it's essential to convince women to have more children, and they're willing to spend some money perhaps to make that happen.
According to "The New York Times", here's some of the proposals that have been presented to the administration. A partial full bride scholarships for parents, $5000 baby bonuses in cash, and classes to educate women on their menstrual cycles and when it's the optimal time of the month to have kids.
I don't think any of those things by themselves are bad, right? But I think that you would be mistaken if you thought that that was going to resolve the affordability crisis, which is really what's behind the fertility issue. Scott Jennings, is that --
JENNINGS: Is that the only issue? I mean, fertility rates and birth rates have been declining in this country for a very long time. I think this is a worthwhile project. It's not one of the nuts and bolts day to day government projects that people tend to obsess over, but as a society and as a culture, we need to have more children, if we want to continue to make America great again today and well into the future.
[22:35:05]
And so, I'm for this kind of thinking. I will say, I think the idea of having big nuclear families has been under assault by the political left in this country for decades, and that's got to be part of what's going on here. We need to make that -- we need to tell people -- (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I mean, this has been happening all over the world, not just America.
JENNINGS: -- big, nuclear families are a good thing -- a good thing.
TANDEN: I mean, I don't know. I support childcare. I support the childcare tax credit. I support child tax credit. A lot of Republicans have voted against the child tax credit. So, I agree with you.
We should actually support families. We should support parents. We should make it easier to have children. I think it's a little weird for the government to share information on menstrual cycles, and I think if the Democratic administration would do something like that, we'd hear a lot of complaints about it.
But, you know, I totally agree that we should do a lot more as an administration to support families, and one way to do that is childcare. Another way to do that is paid leave, and I think it's unfortunate that, you know, conservatives, Republicans have voted against those very ideas in Congress.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: But you also strongly -- but you also strongly -- but you, as a Democrat also --
TANDEN: Tax credit was --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: -- by every Republican in my --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: You did vote. You did vote against --
(CROSSTALK)
LAWLER: No, I supported --
TANDEN: You voted against Reconciliation Bill that had actual childcare in it. You did.
LAWLER: When was that?
TANDEN: And the child tax care credit --
LAWLER: When did I vote against that?
TANDEN: You voted against it back -- way back in 2022.
LAWLER: I wasn't elected until '22.
(CROSSTALK) LAWLER: So, I haven't come in Congress until '23, but thank you. So, you apologize for lying. Thank you.
TANDEN: I'm not lying. Every Republican voted. Every Republican.
LAWLER: And I have supported the child tax credit. I have cosponsored legislation to that effect.
I've also cosponsored and led on legislation with respect to IVF access, codifying IVF access into law.
TANDEN: That would be great.
LAWLER: So, I've actually led on these issues, and as the father of two young daughters, a five-month-old and a three-year-old --
PHILLIP: Nobody's mentioned paid family leave.
(CROSSTALK)
LAWLER: State legislature, I supported it.
PHILLIP: Okay.
JOHNSON: Last week, I think you know this. You've done a lot of work on this, Abby. Last week was black maternal health week. If we think about what is happening in this nation, the maternal mortality rates for black women.
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNSON: And actually, all women -- has increased in this country. And so, if we're going to talk about having more children, we should actually have health care policies that support that. And I would say that the conservatives are actually pushing for policies that don't support that and also gutting our health care system.
When we think about some of the health care systems that are going to be shocked with all of these cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services, that when we think about what's happening to rural communities, this is not going to make it safer for more women to have those --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Let me just -- let me just bring --
JOHNSON: -- atone for those --
PHILLIP: -- one of the reasons this story was so interesting is because it talks about the Pro-Natalist Movement which is this movement that is about having more kids. They just had a conference in Austin that CNN was at. And I think, one of the key things to know is that this is a lot of people, mostly on the right, but they're coming together around babies, but they're coming together around certain babies, but not other babies. And this is part of some of the rhetoric that was at this pro-natalist conference.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: The marginal people need to go back to the margins.
JACK POSOBIEC, NATALCON SPEAKER: We want to raise families. The left is raising pride flags over cat shelters.
PEACHY KEENAN, NATALCON SPEAKER: And 2024, it actually did have a slight uptick in births. Bad news. It was just the anchor babies from illegal immigrants.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The biggest booster of this particular conference was Elon Musk, who we know has many, many children by many, many different women. There's a huge strain of using IVF to do this in a particular way to have, you know, in Elon Musk case, only boys or to have babies that have certain genetic traits. That's the other side of the coin of some of this stuff.
ABRAMS: Well, that -- that's the ugly side, right? I mean, I think there is a way to talk about this and to say, we could probably agree on a lot of this stuff, right? We could probably agree on encouraging people to have children, to get married.
PHILLIP: Right.
ABRAMS: Encourage people with regard to supporting IVF which can be a -- very controversial, to some on the right in particular because of how it happens. But it is something that on the whole doesn't seem to be a bad thing. It's just a question of when you invite certain people who take it to the next level and start talking crazy like we see in a lot of things in this country. You know, you can ruin the party.
LAWLER: The birth rate among women has gone from two children per woman to 1.66 in 15 years. So, we've obviously had a -- precipitous decline in a very short period of time. And I do think affordability is -- is an issue on that. You look at the cost of living, it has skyrocketed over the last two, three decades, and so that does factor into, obviously, raising a child.
The child tax credit, I think, is critical. Paid family leave has been instrumental in really helping people and their families.
[22:40:02]
When it comes to maternal mortality, I do think that's a major issue. In the state legislature --
(CROSSTALK)
JOIHNSON: -- safety issue - going to help support pregnant people.
LAWLER: -- in the state legislature -- in the state legislature, I've -- I supported a lot of legislation focused on that and helping identify, especially among black women, some of the causes of maternal mortality because that is a major problem that we have to deal with as a society. But I think the -- the objective of, obviously, increasing our population is critical.
Over the next few decades, we are projected to have a population decline. And if we don't have an increase in the number of children being born, as well as an immigration system that works, we are going to face serious consequences -- consequences, especially to our health care system. So this is -- this is vital.
PHILLIP: Yeah,
TANDEN: Our country is still growing. I do think it's important to recognize that a vote coming up in the next couple weeks is going to be on health care. It provides Medicaid, does provide health care to a lot of families. There are some people who've been talking about work requirements for Medicaid.
LAWLER: Which Bill Clinton championed.
TANDEN: Okay, but Medicaid work requirements today, not the kind that Bill Clinton championed, but Medicaid work requirements --
LAWLER: What's the difference?
TANDEN: -- or Arkansas, like, after he became president.
LAWLER: No, as president.
TANDEN: -- declined. I just want to say, they cut 40 percent regardless of health care -- regardless of whether Bill Clinton did or not, Medicaid worker permits would cut health care for 40 percent of the Medicaid recipients, including thousands of people and hundreds of thousands of people --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We got to go. Yeah.
LAWLER: This is important. Over the next ten years, we're projected to spend $86 trillion. We're talking about potentially 1.5 trillion in savings, which 1.7 percent of the total spend. Over that same ten year window, Medicaid costs are going to go up 24 percent. We're talking about work requirements, we're talking about, citizenship verification, and we're talking about verification of eligibility. That's it.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Women will lose health care.
LAWLER: That is what we're talking about. No.
TANDEN: No, that is an example.
LAWLER: And we will make sure -- we will make sure that those who rely on this critical program actually have the services they need and that people like the illegal immigrants that are taking it in New York, %1.2 billion being spent on it, are not getting them.
TANDEN: You don't get to $880 billion from one--
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We got to go. Coming up next for us, Canadian -- comedian Larry David, slamming Bill Maher for a dinner with Donald Trump by imagining what a dinner with Hitler would have been like. We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:09]
PHILLIP: Tonight, comedian on comedian violence over a dinner with Donald Trump. Larry David is using his pen to point out what he sees as Bill Maher's misguided meal with the President and his even more misguided monologue to defend that dinner. The satire published in "The New York Times" had David assuming the role of Maher and Adolf Hitler standing in for Donald Trump. Here's a section of that piece.
Quote, "No one I knew encouraged me to go. He's Hitler. He's a monster. But I eventually concluded that hate gets us nowhere. I knew I couldn't change his views, but we needed to talk to the other side even if it had invaded and annexed other countries and committed unspeakable crimes against humanity. And I realized I'd never seen him laugh before. Suddenly, he seemed so human. Here I was prepared to meet Hitler, the one I'd seen and heard, the public Hitler. But this private Hitler was a completely different animal."
It's pretty cutting but he kind of mirrors almost exactly what Bill Maher said. Maybe I should just play it just so people know. This is what Bill Maher said after he met with Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL MAHER, "REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER" HOST: To all the people who treated this like it was some kind of summit meeting, you're ridiculous. Like I was going to sign a treaty or something. I have -- I have no power (BEEP). I'm a comedian and he's the most powerful leader in the world.
Meet up in person. Maybe it'll be different. Spoiler alert, it was. So no, I didn't go MAGA. And to the president's credit, there was no pressure to. Just for starters, he laughs. I'd never seen him laugh in public, but he does.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: He laughed.
ABRAMS: I'm still with Bill Maher on this one because I think that if people like Bill Maher can't go and talk to Donald Trump, we are -- we are really messed up now, because, think about it. Now, he is still going to go and criticize Donald Trump, right? He just has a little more credibility when he's doing it. And the notion when you start bringing in Hitler, right? You know you've lost the argument.
Anytime anyone invokes Hitler, right? And makes the comparison, you're going to lose. You're going to lose because no one -- every --everyone apart from the echo chamber is going to stop listening to you and that's my point. It's my goal and I hope other people's goal is what you do on the show every night.
Get people talking. Have a conversation with people you don't agree with. That's what Bill Maher is saying. That's what he's talking about and Larry David is basically taking the position, no that shouldn't happen.
JENNINGS: And -- and the message of this is not to -- because Bill Maher, first of all, I totally agree. He's totally in the right to do it and I loved his monologue. Even though I disagree with most everything he believes politically, he was right to do this and he was right to speak out about it, but this isn't about that dinner.
[22:50:00]
It's about the next one because this is the modern Left. It's an attempt always to intimidate people into not ever doing it again. It's to silence yourselves or we'll do it for you. That's the purpose of this op ed so that the next comedian or the next person on the American left chooses not to speak to Donald Trump. This isn't -- this is all an effort to get people not to do what you just said, which is to talk to each other and our political leaders.
TANDEN: I mean, I think it's a little weird for people who actually for the administration that just went after Harvard for what it said and is going after law firms and going after the media to all of a sudden make the case that what we really want is a lot of free speech in America.
Now, I understand it's a little weird to talk about Hitler. I agree with that. I think it's a little weird to talk about Hitler. But I think the broader point is a lot of things have happened since Bill Maher had that dinner, right? A lot of things have happened in the country.
ABRAMS: And Bill Maher has criticized them. But Bill Maher's criticized them, right?
TANDEN: I just think that one of the points of that is that you -- I think the point he was trying to make, maybe in artfully, is like the way -- the things that politicians do matter a lot more than what they say to you behind private doors. And people can be very charismatic. I'm sure Donald Trump is a very charismatic person to particular people. But to the people -- to the, you know, to just say, the person who is an immigrant --
JOHNSON: Who lost their job, who lost their healthcare --
TANDEN: -- who lost their job, who are getting fired, who lights in online -- I think that it's -- it does feel a little bit like --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: So then don't make policy choices you're not allowed --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I think that the -- one of the things --one of the things -- one of the interesting things - I think one of the things that Larry David was spoofing was the leading with the, well, he's funny.
UNKNOWN: Right.
PHILLIP: And I think that people that rubs some people the wrong way because Bill Maher's a smart guy, and he can sit down in front of another person who he disagrees with and focus on issues rather than demeanor or the fact that Trump laughed, which Trump has laughed in public before.
UNKNOWN: Right.
PHILLIP: I can assure you that.
JOHNSON: He's also -- really quickly -- but he's criticized a guest of his when in Trump's first administration for going and talking to Trump. And this guest, I can't forget -- remember his name. He was talking about how charismatic Trump is and how nice he is. And Bill Maher said, it does not matter how nice he is to you at Thanksgiving. It matters what, to Neera's point, what he does.
And I think in this climate right now, when people are feeling a lot of pain, not in good ways, and they're frustrated and they see what's happening to kind of humanize them because, yes, we know he's charismatic. We know he -- he's probably one of the greatest showmen on Earth.
JENNINGS: So, during the last administration, when people were feeling pain, do you believe that no one in Hollywood should have spoken to Joe Biden? People were feeling pain all over the country?
PHILLIP: Well, those people, I mean, I think that those people --
JENNINGS: Oh, it's different. It's different but --
PHILLIP: Those people agreed with Joe Biden. I think it would --
JENNINGS: People feel pain --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: No, no, I'm saying the comparison would be --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- the comparison would be -- the comparison would be like -- the comparison would be like a Joe Rogan sitting down with Vice President Kamala Harris, which we know did not happen.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We got to -- we do have to go here. We do have to go here. We do have to go. I'm so sorry, but we're out of time. Coming up next, the panel's going to give us their nightcaps. They're going to tell us their original movie pitch inspired by this weekend's box office winner.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:57:53]
PHILLIP: We're back and it's time for the "NewsNight" cap. The movie "Sinners" had the largest opening weekend for an entirely original movie since 2022, a rarity these days. It's distributed by Warner Brothers Discovery, which owns -- which is partly owned by our parent -- it is part -- is owned by our parent company. So, you each have 30 seconds to give us your pitch for the next original hit movie, and royalties will come back here when it gets sold. Scott.
JENNINGS: All right. I'm pitching a reincarnation buddy comedy called "Time Share". Two strangers by a mistake of reincarnation wake up to see they've been assigned to the same body, but they come from different centuries.
So, they have to learn how to coexist in this person. One person wants to go out and fight a duel. One person just wants to get on their 3 P.M. Zoom call. And some kind of a heist or quest ensues with these two people learning how to work together. "Time Share"
PHILLIP: Not bad at it. That's actually a good idea. Alencia.
JOHNSON: I don't have any thoughts. So, I'm in this whole, like, Black Mirror, but also Afrofuturism space. And then also this weekend, given Eastern Resurrection Sunday, I'm thinking about potentially a movie that is around a viral app for confessionals. And we are talking to the descendants of the people who use this app. And it's Black Mirror esque, and it's kind of maybe these confessions are haunting them, and we'll see.
PHILLIP: Interesting. Dan.
ABRAMS: Since we're in the horror genre, I like the idea of a sequestered jury, and suddenly the sequestered jurors start getting killed one by one. And you think it's the defendant and it turns out it's one of the jurors.
PHILLIP: Wow.
ABRAMS: And it's sick and it's fascinating to me because I am a legal geek and we're talking horror movies.
PHILLIP: Wow. You guys have some great ideas.
TANDEN: I'm trying to go a little bit more topical here, so I'll say, a U.S. Defense Secretary accidentally Signals war plans to his ex- girlfriend and then they magically come together in Signals of Love".
JOHNSON: This is -- this is --
PHILLIP: Congressman Lawler, go ahead.
[23:00:00]
LAWLER: Mine is called "Blink". It's a thriller. A mission goes wrong and a covert agent develops a terrifying condition that every time he blinks, time moves faster from minutes to hours to days, and enemies -- allies become enemies, and ultimately, a global threat unfolds. And he's trapped in this timeline that he can't control, and he's one blink away from disaster.
PHILLIP: All right, you're all hired. Everybody, thank you very much for being here, and thanks for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me anytime on social media -- X, Instagram, TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
