Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Comey Charged With Threatening Trump, Faces Arrest Warrant; FCC Orders Review Of Disney Licenses After Kimmel's Trump Joke; Ally Calls Out Trump's Iran Strategy; Trump's Face Soon To Appear In Limited Edition U.S. Passports. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired April 28, 2026 - 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 VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, shellshocked, the DOJ secures another indictment against Trump foe James Comey over his stunt that made waves.
Plus --
JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!: It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he's almost 80 and she's younger than I am.
PHILLIP: -- the FCC targets ABC with an extraordinary move after Jimmy Kimmel's joke infuriates the White House.
Also --
FRIEDRICH MERZ, GERMAN CHANCELLOR: The Americans clearly have no strategy.
PHILLIP: -- the German chancellor says Iran is humiliating the U.S. while Congress begins to warn the president time's almost up.
And you are now free to travel about the world with Donald Trump's face alongside your vacation stamps.
Live at the table, Joe Borelli, Chuck Rocha, Lydia Moynihan, Kmele Foster, and Elie Honig.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about. James Comey is indicted again. It all stems from this Instagram post that the former FBI director made nearly a year ago where Comey posted a picture of seashells arranged to say 86, 47, with the caption, cool shell formation on my beach walk. The DOJ alleges that the phrase and post was, quote, an expression of intent to do harm to President Trump. An arrest warrant has been issued, but it's unclear whether he'll be taken into custody by law enforcement, or if he'll turn himself in.
Now, the charges come with a prison sentence of up to ten years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Threatening the life of anybody is dangerous and potentially a crime. Threatening the life of the president of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Comey removed that post shortly after he put it on the internet. And following the backlash, he said that he didn't believe that he was promoting violence at all. And the department brought charges against Comey last September accusing him of obstruction of justice in lying to Congress on a different issue over leaks to the press.
Now, those charges were ultimately dismissed after the court ruled that the interim U.S. attorney was improperly appointed. Comey responded today in a video on his Substack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Well, they're back this time about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago, and this won't be the end of it, but nothing has changed with me. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So, let's go.
But it's really important that all of us remember, this is not who we are as a country. This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be. And the good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values. Keep the faith.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: A three-page indictment, Elie Honig, and we don't really know much more other than that James Comey put a picture on the internet and then deleted it.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, they don't have much more than that. That is all they have. And, look, this is a question of what is DOJ really trying to do here? What are they trying to accomplish? If the goal is, I'm Todd Blanche, I'm trying to become the full-time attorney general, I want to be able to say, look at me, I indicted Jim Comey. Maybe we'll perp walk him. Maybe we'll get that quick sugar rush. They'll get that. If the goal is to bring a valid case that has a chance in hell of ultimate success, they will fail. This indictment isn't even close. They have to show -- the law is very specific here. They have to show that this communication, this picture of seashells, was an intent to kill or physically injure the president.
Now, I'm sure we will debate what does 86 mean? I'm sure there's -- I know there's examples out there where people have used 86 to mean kill, but there's also plenty of examples if you look in any dictionary where it just means to cancel. I had a booker, by the way, when I started an older guy, and when my segments would get canceled, he would say, hey, man, you're 86ed, okay? Didn't mean I was dead, it just meant I was canceled.
So, I don't think --
PHILLIP: Are you sure it didn't mean that you were dead though?
HONIG: I'm still here.
Look, this is a ridiculous indictment and it's not as if DOJ can have some secret piece of evidence.
[22:05:01]
It's just about the post. That's all it is. That's the whole piece. That's the whole case.
PHILLIP: And to your point, back in 2021, Jack Posobiec, who recently even traveled with cabinet officials to Ukraine, he met with Zelenskyy as part of the U.S. delegation, he tweeted, 86, 46. That would be referring to Joe Biden. And there's also another example of 86, 46 being used in the context of saying Kevin McCarthy doesn't have a job. Ronna McDaniel doesn't have a job. Mitch McConnell doesn't have a job. Why are they doing this? And how is it not a waste of taxpayer, energy and funds to be pursuing this kind of case against James Comey?
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Well, let's start with two things. The original case against him wasn't dismissed on any merits. It was dismissed because the prosecutor was appointed improperly. So, we didn't hear any evidence in that case beyond what that indictment said. There wasn't an opportunity for discovery. There wasn't evidence presented at trial. There wasn't a jury verdict. All we had in that case was an indictment.
Everything Elie said is true. The fact remains though that a jury of bona fide Americans, you know, formed and issued a true bill against Jim Comey for violating a specific statute, okay? I wasn't there. I mean, you have the indictment. I don't think you were at the trial. I don't think you were part of James Comey's questioning. I don't think you were part of any evidence they gathered, so we don't know what else they might have that might corroborate the intent, the willful intent that's part of the statute.
PHILLIP: What do you think, Joe?
BORELLI: I mean, you just recited a lot of things, but what do you think is the merit -- are the merits of a charge like this on a principled level? Because, I mean, I think there are a couple of issues here. I mean, there are some legal issues. But then there's also just basic free speech issues at play here. Do you think that this is an appropriate use of the government's --
BORELLI: Well, this is a statute that's constituted on the books. It's been charged on other people. So, it's not a free speech issue in and of itself.
PHILLIP: Has it been charged over someone posting an Instagram post?
BORELLI: Well, I mean, Instagram has been around for, what, 15 years. I have no idea. Regardless, the point I'm trying to make and the general thing is the thing I'm most sick about is the Jim Comey holier than now line of crap.
PHILLIP: That's the thing you're most sick about?
BORELLI: No, it's just so annoying. This is a guy who makes these videos. I'm so innocent. I've never done anything wrong.
HONIG: Who's creating the opportunity for that to happen?
BORELLI: This is a guy -- I'm just saying this is a guy who formed the Russian collusion nonsensical narrative, gets fired by Trump, then purposely leaks his own internal memos to get a special prosecutor to bring down the president.
So, I'm sick of us pretending that this guy is innocent, this innocent guy.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Okay.
KMELE FOSTER, EDITOR-AT-LARGE,, TANGLE: Look, to be totally fair, the administration has created the opportunity here. The free speech issue is not only valid. I think it is perhaps the principle thing for us to be concerned about here. It is our most foundational right. This is clearly an expression of some sentiment on the part of James Comey. The fact that we're talking about interpretation here makes that very, very clear.
And I think for the administration, they really need to take a clear- eyed look at what they're doing here. This is a circumstance where they're consistently, reliably going after their political opponents using the apparatus of the federal government to do that. It doesn't just look bad. It's petty, it's vindictive, it is gross, and I think it is a crass violation of our civil rights.
BORELLI: We've had three assassinations attempts.
FOSTER: It is something to be very concerned about.
BORELLI: We've had three assassination attempts of this guy.
FOSTER: This is not an assassination attempt.
BORELLI: We have had rhetoric leading to these actions. And you have someone --
FOSTER: And you mentioned rhetoric again, that is also freedom of expression. BORELLI: He can't be this hapless, septuagenarian who doesn't even know where he is, you know, stumbling upon seashells that he totally --
FOSTER: Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
BORELLI: My point is that he knew what he was doing. This is a guy who was a top law enforcement officer --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: But, Joe, just a second, to be clear, what are you saying that he knew that he was doing?
BORELLI: I believe he was saying, threaten President Trump.
PHILLIP: So, you're saying that -- so hold on. Let me just -- hold on a second, Joe. You're saying that his intent was, by posting, that he intended to send a message that he intended to kill the president, that's what you're saying?
BORELLI: No. 86 is a command to others, right? 86-something is a command.
PHILLIP: 86 is not a command.
BORELLI: Get rid of Trump.
PHILLIP: But intent is important. I mean, is intent not a fact --
BORELLI: The grand jury decided it.
HONIG: It's entirely about --
PHILLIP: Elie?
HONIG: So, let me -- yes. It's entirely about, was this intended as a communication to kill or physically injure the president?
Now, a couple things. First of all, not a jury, grand jury, very different standard (INAUDIBLE). If we're going to take the position that anyone who's indicted by a grand jury, there's something to that. I mean, when the Manhattan D.A. got a grand jury to indict Donald Trump on that hush money case, which I also criticized, that too was bogus. This is bogus. You can tell because of the indictment. You can tell because of what the evidence they have is.
Now, look, Jim Comey, if it was a crime to be holier than thou, as you say, find him guilty, okay? I'm not a fan of the guy. I've criticized him sharply on this air, in my book, not a fan at all. But I don't care who's on the other side of the view. I care about what the United States, the prosecution says here.
[22:10:00]
I don't care if it's Donald Trump. If it's a wrongful prosecution, I will call it out. I'm not a fan of Jim Comey. This is a bogus prosecution. They're never going to be able show it was intended to kill.
PHILLIP: Let me play -- this is Todd Blanche trying to answer or maybe not answering a question about how they are going to try to prove that James Comey intended to send a message to kill President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Sir, how will you prove intent when, as the director had acknowledged, Mr. Comey said he did not associate 86 with doing harm, and he took it down promptly, said it was political speech, not an intent to harm the president?
BLANCHE: This conduct occurred about a year ago, May 15th of last year. There's been a tremendous amount of investigation. And how do you prove intent in any case? You prove intent with witnesses, with documents, with the defendant himself, to the extent it's appropriate, and that's how we will improve intent in this case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUCK ROCHA, SUBSTACK, THE ROCHA REVOLUTION: Look as somebody who's not also a Comey sympathizer, I remind all the other Democrats watching what James Comey did to Hillary Clinton in that election in the last minute. I'll leave that to the side to say I'm with you, Elie, on what the intent piece, but I'm also with you to tell you that there's going to be a pattern tonight in the show. And the pattern tonight, the things that we talk about, is there a pattern of where the American electorate had been doing nothing but focus groups and polling, getting ready for the midterms over the last two months. I know you missed me while I was gone, but I'm back, because I've been listening to voters.
And voters see that what we're talking about every day on this show with the Comey thing is not what the American people think. And I think that's where we're getting to in the midterms, is they want to know what's going on to you to help them. And they see this as another overreach in a whole orchestra of overreach.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, it is a, it's a major question about whether, again, as I started with my question to Joe, is this the best use of taxpayer dollars? Is this the best use of the United States government? They are -- they claimed to have spent a year investigating an Instagram post only to produce an indictment that includes none of the supposed intelligence or evidence that he says would be necessary to actually prove the intent. There was no witness testimony. There was -- there were no statements. There was nothing. The only statements we have are Jim Comey saying it wasn't intended for that purpose and taking it down.
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK POST: So they're obviously going to have a very high legal bar that they must reach if they want to get a prosecution, and Elie obviously spoke to the challenges that may present. I do want to acknowledge though, I mean, this is coming 72 hours after another assassination against Donald Trump, and a lot of people in the MAGA base saw that, and this happened after two assassinations against James Comey.
PHILLIP: That's not an attempt to charge someone --
MOYNIHAN: But I want to acknowledge that, because after an assassination comes, it's not cute or glib to post something like that.
PHILLIP: But you cannot use assassination attempts against any person as a pretext to charge other people with things that are baseless. And I actually think that that's -- you're making an important point, because, Elie, I was trying to figure out earlier today about the -- hold on a second, earlier today about the timing of this thing, okay?
Today, April, what is it 28th, right, they went to the grand jury today 72 hours after what happened on Saturday night? I mean, it seems like they felt like this was the opportune time.
HONIG: Yes. So, first of all, I didn't like this post by Jim Comey at all, right? I thought it was irresponsible, stupid, potentially dangerous, but, again, that's not a crime. I am very dubious about the timing. I watched that press conference today when Todd Blanche was asked, why did this take you a year?
And I've known Todd for 20 some years, since we were at the SDNY together, he was hamana-hamana, just word salad. He had no explanation. I promise you, they have not been investigating this continually for a year. The timing, you cannot ignore that suddenly here we are a year out and it's three days later after the shooting or attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
And let's keep in mind, Blanche is auditioning. He wants this job and I'll tell you right now, he knows he has got to go into Trump with some red meat and go, look what I did. Here's an indictment of Jim Comey, one of your top items. So, I'm very dubious about the timing.
MOYNIHAN: Look, I would say, I think that Republicans were more excited last week when the DOJ and the FBI revealed their findings on the SPLC, which found there was money that this supposedly anti-racist organization was funneling to the KKK. I think those kind of findings are going to be more permanent and more significant in the long run.
PHILLIP: The federal government also raided businesses for fraud in Minnesota today. And guess what? It was overshadowed by it. This thing, I mean, I think that actually, to your point, there are other things that have more substance to them they could be talking about right now, and they're not because they're talking about this.
ROCHA: I got a question for Elie. One second, can you really just show up at a grand jury with a picture and say, can we indict this man for putting this picture up?
HONIG: I mean, well, the answer is yes. If someone -- let's just say those seashells spelled out, please kill the president, then, yes, you would have an indictment.
[22:15:04] But 86 is ambiguous and you'll never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
ROCHA: But you're saying to me, and that's my question, can you show up with that picture? Because he got the indictment, but was there nothing more than that from what you can tell?
HONIG: You can. If the evidence --
BORELLI: What if it said pop a cap on Trump?
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: No. What I'm saying, would that mean I'm going to do something on bottle --
HONIG: Yes.
BORELLI: There are --
HONIG: No, I think pop a cap --
BORELLI: -- messages that are sent, you know, with --
FOSTER: I think you know, however, at 86 --
PHILLIP: But I do want to -- I mean, actually, we do have to go. But, Elie, I do want you to address this. When you make a statement anywhere online or wherever, is the statement alone enough to be chargeable?
HONIG: Sure, if it's clear enough, if it's clear on the face. If it's kill him, yes. If I if somebody goes online and says, everybody, please go try to injure the president, try to kill him, that statement alone, yes, can be enough, because you can infer the intent from the words itself. But when you get into --
PHILLIP: Even when it's directed the universe, it's not directed at anybody in particular?
HONIG: Yes, it can be.
PHILLIP: So, all of these crazy people who are constantly, you know, writing that they want to kill Trump on the internet, which I'm sure happens every single day, the DOJ should be charging them?
HONIG: They can. Those people can be charged on the basis of the statement if it's that clear. This statement is nowhere near that clear enough.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, after Jimmy Kimmel's joke, Donald Trump's FCC takes action against Disney and ABC in an extraordinary move.
Plus, a NATO ally is saying that Iran is humiliating Trump and the U.S. and suggests that America has no idea what it is doing in this war. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a day after the president and the first lady called for Jimmy Kimmel to be fired by ABC for joking that Melania Trump looked like an expectant widow in a skit, Donald Trump's FCC is targeting the network's station licenses. It is an extraordinary escalation in a years-long saga between ABC's parent company, Disney, and Donald Trump. And while the FCC says that the license review is related to Disney's diversity initiatives, it's being widely viewed as a form of government retaliation.
Last night, Kimmel addressed this controversy over his jokes from last Thursday's broadcast.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KIMMEL: It obviously was a joke about their age difference and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together. It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he's almost 80 and she's younger than I am. It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination.
I agree that hateful and violent rhetoric is something we should reject. I do. And I think a great place to start to dial that back would be to have a conversation with your husband about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, Kimmel is not backing down, and it was interesting because the Hollywood Reporter had a story today about how even ABC's advertisers don't seem to be putting up a stink over this, especially after what happened last fall. ABC station owners and advertisers are not firing to clamor -- not clamoring to fire Jimmy Kimmel this time.
And it seems to suggest that they feel like they've seen this movie before and they think these threats are empty or likely to fail.
MOYNIHAN: Yes. Well, the initial inquiries were sent in March. They were just reported today. And it is the FCC's job to see what's happening on the airwaves.
I just think from ABC's vantage point, it's extremely inconsistent. They've had no issue firing Roseanne Barr in two seconds. She tried to apologize. They said no way. They fired Chris Harrison from The Bachelor because he said, should we fire somebody and get rid of her for going to a party when she was a teen.
And I'd like to remind people too, I mean, when Obama was president, there was literally a clown at a rodeo in Missouri who made a joke about Obama getting gored by a bull, he got fired.
So, unless it's Trump, we have a very high standard for what we expect of entertainment employees and what we expect in terms of being respectful to the president.
And I would remind people as well, you know, there was another assassination attempt at the Hilton, obviously against Ronald Reagan the last time. And after that incident, the country was so shaken. Johnny Carson, who was a Democrat, decided to postpone the Oscars because he thought it would be inappropriate to be celebrating and cheering when there was such an act of political violence. And you juxtapose that with Jimmy Kimmel, who continues to double down and ridicule and make fun of Melania, it would've been so easy for him to say, I screwed up, I apologize, and take some responsibility, and instead he just wants to continue to victim blame Donald Trump for getting shot at. Seriously?
FOSTER: Although in this particular case, Kimmel would've had to have some prior knowledge of what was going to happen in this case, to have something to apologize for.
MOYNIHAN: Right, but the timing was unfortunate enough that he might as well have said, you know what, that was an unfortunate timing. I wish that hadn't been said.
FOSTER: Suppose one could say that, but he also made a joke on Thursday. The bad thing that we are all alluding to here happened on Saturday. The two are not connected in any meaningful sense.
And, again, what you said earlier is worth repeating. The several attacks that have happened directed at Donald Trump are egregious. It's shaken me quite a bit, honestly, to think that in the United States, in the year of our Lord, 2026, people are taking shots at the president, and this is disconcerting. At the same time, it doesn't seem appropriate to me that the response from the administration is, well, let's start cracking down on everyone who is saying anything directed at the president, even if it has no connection whatsoever to an assassination plot.
[22:25:02]
So, that, to me, again, strikes a pettiness, it seems vindictive, and, again, it runs afoul of our laws. If there is a legitimate concern about systematic discrimination on the part of broadcasters here, the FCC would pretty much have grounds to go after every broadcaster in America related to DEI policies.
PHILLIP: Including, by the way, Fox, which has DEI policies, and just like all the other networks. But, anyway, Elie?
HONIG: So, private entities have the right to fire people if they want, if they don't like that person's speech. But the real fundamental question here has to do with governmental power. Do we want the FCC policing the content of speech, because that's a totally different thing?
The First Amendment applies to governmental action. It doesn't apply directly to ABC. And so if the FCC is throwing its governmental weight around to try to influence speech, to try to punish certain speech, that is where the First Amendment is violated. ROCHA: Punish, throw your weight around, going back to the first segment. When you talk about regulation, the biggest thing that's changed since Ronald Reagan's horrible assassination attempt at that same hotel, and we would talk about it in the break, is the internet. Things now on the internet make us want to hate each other because we're Team Red or Team Blue, because it makes people literally rich. And the government, whether we should or shouldn't regulate, people scream at me from the right and from the left, we got to be able to go on the internet and say whatever we want to say. That's all right. It's the new town square, ala what the Tesla guy said, what's his name?
MOYNIHAN: Elon Musk?
ROCHA: Right. It's the new town square.
But when you put it in this context, it's, it starts a pattern of what we're talking about, Abby, which is, is it overreach? Is it regulation? Is it folks, while again, and I'll stop, people at home are trying to figure out how to make ends meet, they see their government trying to regulate whatever news do.
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, you're making a good point that for a while it seemed that free speech argument was the argument being made on the right, by people like Elon Musk, by people like J.D. Vance, who last year went to Europe and lectured them about protecting free speech. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat. So, I come here today not just with an observation but with an offer. And just as the Biden administration seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds, so the Trump administration will do precisely the opposite, and I hope that we can work together on that.
In Washington, there is a new sheriff in town. And under Donald Trump's leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Unless you are a late night comedian, Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, or, frankly, anybody who criticizes President Trump, they won't defend your right to say things they disagree with then.
BORELLI: Well, the president's not prosecuting, you know, Jimmy Kimmel. He's saying he should be fired. And that could be his opinion. If you joked about someone's death, which he believed he did, go ahead, you know, criticize him.
PHILLIP: Are you saying that the government doesn't necessarily --
BORELLI: So, you're using the government to bring something that they brought in March of 2025. They started this March, 2025. PHILLIP: You can use the government's regulatory power -- I'm not talking just about this, because don't forget, Brendan Carr made this threat first last fall. So, the threat of using the government's regulatory power to police speech and police the actions of private corporations, that has been unequivocally put on the table. And I'm not the -- hold on a second. I am not the only -- I am not the only person saying that. Here is Ted Cruz today. He says it is not the government's job to censor speech, and I do not believe the FCC should operate as the speech police.
Ted Cruz, he's no Trump hater. He's no RINO. He believes that this action and he was consistent, the last action, the last comments by Brendan Carr, he was very clear that he believed that that was a clear evidence of jawboning, which is using the threat to coerce speech. So, it doesn't require that you throw somebody in jail, just the threat of using regulatory power to coerce their actions is what has happened.
BORELLI: Just to be clear, the FCC is not threatening to throw anybody in jail.
PHILLIP: So, are you denying the Brendan Carr did not issue a threat in the fall to ABC or to Disney that they were going to --
BORELLI: Chairman Carr's letter in March, 2025 --
PHILLIP: Joe, simple question, did Brendan Carr in the fall say that he would take a look at Disney's FCC licenses because of the comments that Jimmy Kimmel made?
BORELLI: I don't remember, but I can tell you--
PHILLIP: Well, I can tell you. I can tell you. Hold on a second. I can tell you he did say that.
So, given that he said that, do you acknowledge that's him using his power as a government entity to try to coerce the actions of a private company?
BORELLI: You are trying to stretch something that is on paper that you can read with your own eyes and see.
[22:30:01]
The chairman's letter involves Disney's DEI policies, which the FCC has been regulating equal employment practices since something like 1968 or 1969. Every time a license gets renewed, they have to apply the same standards to everybody. And one of those standards is employment practices. If Disney has nothing --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, it's a good question. Why aren't they applying this standard across the board? Why are they reviewing --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Disney's licenses are not up for renewal. They're not.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: In 2028.
UNKNOWN: They expedited the process.
PHILLIP: They are not up for renewal right now.
(CROSSTALK)
HONIG: The way we are talking about this at this table, all of us, exposes that this is a pretext piled up top another pretext. We all know this is not about DEI policies. We're not even really talking about it this way. We know it's about the content of speech. We know it's about the jokes Jimmy Kimmel made. We know it's about the kind of things that he says. That's what's prompting all of this.
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: Which broadcaster hasn't made commitments to do this --
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: Do you know of any broadcaster that hasn't done this?
BORELLI: Underrepresented groups.
FOSTER: Do you know of any broadcaster that hasn't made similar commitments since 2020?
BORELLI: No, and when their license get renewed, I imagine --
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: The license isn't up for renewal. What we know is that the process was actually expedited here. In fact, it seems as though they've expedited the process in the last couple of days. Why do you suspect that happened?
BORELLI: The process began in March of 2025.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: It was done over the last year. You pointed out something that happened in the fall. So, this has been ongoing for --
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: I'm asking you why they're expediting now.
BORELLI: I'm just telling you that there is a ongoing inquiry by the FCC.
FOSTER: Okay, I understand.
BORELLI: That Disney has nothing to hide about their DEI policy.
FOSTER: The answer is not convenient for you.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I don't think it's in good faith to suggest that things that happened in recent history that were big stories at the time didn't happen. They happened, right? We know that Brendan Carr's threats to Disney were, that was the big story. And he was crystal clear about it. Even Republicans had to rebuke him. And that's why they ultimately backed down. And Disney -- and they put Jimmy Kimmel back on the air.
So, we can't pretend like that didn't happen. We can't pretend that that's not the context. We also can't pretend that the context isn't that Trump has specifically asked and told ABC that they should take Kimmel off the air. So, all of that, Joe, I mean, if you're being honest, Joe, hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: If you are, hold on a second. If you're being honest, I think my final question to you, it's just sort of like in the last segment when we were talking about this. Do you really believe that this is the proper use of the federal government? You are a conservative.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: J.D. Vance said, we will protect your right to say things we don't like. Is it the right use of the government for the FCC chairman to threaten a private company over speech that the president doesn't (inaudible) --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: The FCC chairman put in the writing a question about DEI policies which they have jurisdiction to oversee. If Disney does not have anything to hide about the DEI policies, go through the review.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: What about -- what about Khar's -- okay (inaudible). Stipulate it.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: We're going to comply. We're going to comply.
PHILLIP: What about Kahr's threats in the fall? Good use of his --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: I don't remember. (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay, well, I'm telling you that it happened. Good use of his time or bad use of his time?
BORELLI: Maybe a bad use. It doesn't conclude the fact --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Listen, Joe, all I'm getting at is honesty. That's all I'm getting at.
BORELLI: I'm quoting from a letter.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All I'm getting at is can we be honest brokers at this table? Can we call a spade a spade? If you're a conservative and you have fundamental beliefs about the role of government, about free speech, can you apply those even when you like the President?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Can you?
BORELLI: Those are in favor of applying equal employment laws to companies.
FOSTER: And this looks like selective enforcement because every single broadcaster has --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, I think we know what the answer to that question is. Next for us, Germany's chancellor says the United States is being humiliated by Tehran, and the President fired back. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:39:53]
PHILLIP: Tonight, an ally calls out the President's strategy in Iran, claiming that the U.S. is being, quote, "humiliated" by Tehran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRIEDRICH MERZ, GERMAN CHANCELLOR (through translator): The Americans clearly have no strategy and the problem with conflicts like this is always that you just don't go in. You also have to get out again. At the moment, I cannot see what strategic exit the Americans are now opting for, especially as the Iranians are obviously negotiating very skillfully, or rather very skillfully not negotiating and letting the Americans travel to Islamabad only to leave again without any results. This entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranians state leadership, especially by these so-called revolutionary guards.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Trump slammed the German Chancellor in a Truth Social post saying that he thinks it's "OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon," and that "he doesn't know what he's talking about." Trump added that it's no wonder Germany is doing so poorly, both economically and otherwise. And as we come on the air, "The Wall Street Journal" is reporting that Trump is now preparing for an extended blockade of Iran.
[22:40:04]
He's told his aides in a Situation Room meeting that he's opted to continue squeezing Iran's economy and oil exports by preventing shipping to and from its ports. He assessed that his other options, was resuming bombing or just walking away from the conflict, carried more risk than maintaining the blockade.
The blockade, just to be clear, is not free, okay? It's not free both in terms of time of our service members who are on these ships, and also in terms of the cost.
ROCHA: They really have -- Iran really has, in a corner here, and they have a lot of the chips right now. And most folks at home would agree if you ask them should Iran have a nuclear weapon, everybody's going to say no, no. They can remember, especially old folks like me, young folks, whatever. But the folks who are actually out here voting and looking at this, get that piece.
But unless you have a Donald Trump flag in your front yard, or a tattoo of Chuck Rocha on your chest, you've already got an opinion. Everybody else is just mad about gas prices. This is the first time in my 57 years on the earth that I've seen the American electorate tuned out of a war. We were talking in the groom room when somebody just walked by earlier today with like, have you all forgotten we're still in a war? We're having assassination attempts. We're talking about tearing down the West Wing.
We're doing all these things. We're at war. Folks at home are just seeing gas prices. That's what they see in a war. And when you back Donald Trump in the corner, he don't like to back down. That's why this is really, really bad when he comes out and says what he says tonight. Because Donald Trump, love him or hate him, don't like to back down, but the American people are ones suffering for it.
PHILLIP: Yes, an extended blockade means the Strait of Hormuz will remain the way is right now. Nothing really going in and nothing really coming out. So, it doesn't relieve the pressure gauge on gas prices, which today are at $4.18. That's the highest in three and a half years. And a new Reuters poll is showing that just 22 percent of Americans approve of President Trump's handling of the cost of living. That is the lowest number since Reuters started asking this question in 2012.
MOYNIHAN: I know we talk about how bad everything is for America when it comes to the Iran war, but I would also like to point out some new reporting about how dire it is for Iran. Iran's economy hinges on oil. They only have so much ability to store this oil. They have about 12 days left of storage. If they don't keep pumping, the pressure that basically allows them to remove that oil is going to go away and those oil fields will be incapacitated.
So they're -- what do you think about America's in a tough place? Iran is in a much more challenging place.
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: They have about two weeks left basically before their potential economy and oil is completely destroyed.
PHILLIP: I was hearing that 12-day or so timeline at least 10 days ago. So, Iran -- I think you're right. This is going to stretch them. This is going to devastate their economy. But they're effectively a dictatorship. They don't care. They don't care about the harm that this is causing to their people. And that's why we're in this stalemate that we're in. So, I mean, this is why Germany is asking the question, how do we get out?
FOSTER: Well, they do have a different sort of political calculus for precisely the reasons you underscore there. But it's also true that they have been making recent overtures. The reporting suggests that they are trying to make some sort of deal now, and that the President of the United States is skeptical of whether or not the deal is sufficiently good, and perhaps wants to extend this blockade further.
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: That is also --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: The details matter, right?
FOSTER: The details matter.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: When you're a world away, they're not even talking about limitations on their nuclear program.
FOSTER: Yes.
PHILLIP: That's not getting close to a deal. That's just Iran putting something on the table that they know we're not going to accept.
MOYNIHAN: Can we talk about the German chancellor? You know, Trump was warning that maybe our European allies weren't really our allies. For the chancellor to go out there, a man who basically relies on the U.S. for all of his LNG imports, and he says that we're humiliated, I think he's humiliated because they tried to embrace green energy. It's completely failing. Their energy prices are going up, and now they're just blaming us. Why don't they help?
BORELLI: Even more humiliating --
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: That would be nice.
BORELLI: Even more humiliating is his defense of NATO, which is fine, whose sole purpose is to counter Russian aggression, but at the same time relying on Russia for 55 percent of your energy. That's what I'd be really embarrassed about if I was the Chancellor of Germany right now, not about whether Trump is going to, you know, finally solve the Iran crisis. I do think the blockade is the best tool that the administration has right now outside of continuing, you know, kinetic efforts against Iran.
I mean, the blockade is essentially what will bring Iran back to the negotiating table whether it's now, it's this week or a week later. I think Trump's smart for preparing for a long blockade because we saw them float in some decommissioned oil tankers that they're going to try to store some oil, so they don't have to block the pumps. But the blockade is really the Trump --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We're hitting 60 day tomorrow of this conflict which is when it actually triggers a congressional authorization requirement.
[22:45:04]
So, we'll see whether or not the Trump administration decides to actually go to Congress about something that now could extend indefinitely into the future. Next for us, guess who might be coming with you on your future international trip? Commemorative U.S. passports are going to feature none other than Donald Trump.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:04]
PHILLIP: Tonight, if you want to see even more evidence of Donald Trump's face, you can do that now, according to the State Department. The President's face will soon be featured in limited edition United States passports, and the new design commemorating America's 250th will be the default passport coming out of the Washington Passport Agency. But that's according to an official. Other offices and online renewals will maintain the existing design.
The passport joins a growing list of things named after Trump just this term. The Trump Kennedy Center, the Trump Battleship Fleet, the National Park passes, just to name a few. And we do have the rolling ledger of how Trump is doing compared to his predecessors in terms of naming things after himself. Everybody's at zero. And Trump is at 10.
ROCHA: I've got a theory on this passport thing and stay with me now. Most of Americans, you all should know at home, don't have a passport. Most folks can't afford to travel. The most people who don't have a passport -- most people don't have a passport, and the people who don't are non-college educated working class folks who just try to make it every day who I alluded to earlier. Well, guess who that group of people overwhelmingly voted for. The Democrat will admit, it was Donald Trump.
A lot in my family. My family's long and deep and none of them got a passport either. Some of them even like Donald Trump. Donald Trump is trying to -- this is last point. Donald Trump is trying to pass the SAVE Act, and if he passed the SAVE Act, you'd need one of these passports to actually go and vote. So he's trying to get his folks some passports by putting his picture on it. That's what I think he's trying to do.
PHILLIP: That is -- that is quite the conspiracy. It might be true. It might be true.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yes.
FOSTER: Yes, I mean, the President seems really determined to kind of put his visage on everything. I just don't appreciate -- well, I don't appreciate it in general. I have a kind of visceral reaction to it. But it's also one of those things where the photo that he selected, it's just him glowering at you. It doesn't really seem like exactly what I would want to do if I were putting my face on top -- on everything.
MOYNIHAN: Trump is one of a kind. It is not something he would do. It's something he would absolutely do. And I hate to break it to you. There is a market for this. There are going be people who are very excited to get one of these.
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: It is a limited edition thing. I don't think it's breaking news that Trump likes to brand things. He has a little bit of an ego. He likes to his name on things.
PHILLIP: I mean, I was trying, we were trying to figure out and I mean, there's be no good way to find out. If there's any other country in the world where there's a head of state with a photo on it, and I can't really find any evidence of it. Maybe if people at home --
UNKNOWN: North Korea, Russia --
PHILLIP: -- know of one, let us know. But putting your face on a passport, why? Why would you do that?
BORELLI: You always can't say, though, that this is not the Trump that Trump voters voted for. This is fundamentally who he is. And 25 percent of America, including my sister-in-law, are probably already in line at the post office.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So what? There's something called restraint that every other president, ever, that we've had, who's exercising, including past presidents who have shot down efforts to put their --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: Abby, he doesn't control you. He's trolling you. You see the reaction? He's trolling you.
PHILLIP: -- who had Congress who said, we want to put your face on some -- or your name on something. And they said, no, don't do that. That's not how we do things in this country.
BORELLI: This is who he is. He's trolling you. He's trolling people like you. He loves watching the TDS over this stuff. And by the way, we did have some other good names from presidents. Bidenomics, that didn't work out well. Obamacare, that's not doing well. So like, yes, maybe they didn't coin them, but I wouldn't want my name associated with that.
PHILLIP: Yes, not only did they not coin them, but Republicans put their name on other --
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: Those are bad examples, Joe.
BORELLI: My point is, Trump is just trolling the haters, and they fall for it. They step on the rake every time.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: He really likes --
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: His ability to advertise himself is what got him elected in the first place. That's what took him from "The Apprentice" to the White House. It's literally his most instinctual -- it's his most instinctual thing.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Here's a quick funny thing. The White House X account has taken its time out of its day to respond to some followers with fewer than 500 followers who criticized this new thing by responding, "What about this one, Mike?" And they posted a picture of a Metro card for Obama's inauguration day, which when I checked my notes, Obama was not actually president when this happened. The White House --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It is a Washington, D.C. Metro card. So, anyway, I mean, taxpayer dollars, everyone. Next for us, your feedback as panelists reveal what they thought about tonight's show. Be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:59:22] PHILLIP: We're going to end tonight with some real-time viewer feedback. Joe, you're up first.
BORELLI: Where is it? Is it on the screen yet? Put it on the screen. Come on man, seashells. What's next? Driftwood from Uranus? That wasn't that.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: Did you have five or six buckets of chicken today? Idiot.
PHILLIP: Your fans are --
UNKNOWN: Mean?
ROCHA: Lovely fans.
PHILLIP: All right, Chuck.
ROCHA: Push it back. I can't see all the way over there.
(CROSSTALK)
ROCHA: I don't see no tweets, but oh, here we go. Sorry Chuck, anyone who wears a stupid cowboy hat in the studio will never be taken seriously.
[23:00:01]
You appear to be a clown. Save it for the ranch. Look, if you knew how much I like to break the rules, brother, you have no idea. Wearing a hat inside ain't (ph) nothing.
PHILLIP: Kmele?
FOSTER: Exceedingly un-American. Yes, what do we got here? What's with the guy wearing a baseball hat and a cowboy hat on the show?
UNKNOWN: Get their ass (ph).
FOSTER: Wow. I mean, honestly --
PHILLIP: Huge anti-hat crowd.
FOSTER: Yes. And erroneous.
PHILLIP: All right, Lydia.
MOYNIHAN: Moment of truth. Honestly, Abby Phillip, do you go out of your way to have incredibly ignorant morons on your show? People think they dig (ph).
PHILLIP: My final word is everyone just be a little nicer, and thank you very much for watching. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media -- X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" is right now.
