Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump DOJ Shake-Up Sidelines Top Prosecutors; Trump Signs Executive Order To End Birthright Citizenship; Trump Revokes Protection For Bolton; Bishop Faces Blowback Over Sermon Directed At Trump; DHS Puts Churches, Schools On Notice For ICE Arrests; Trump Executive Order Threatens Fate Of Afghan Wartime Allies. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired January 21, 2025 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[23:00:00]

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDNET TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Day one, Jennings administration, 2028, sign it up.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Ooh, Scott took this one to heart.

(LAUGHTER)

I will tell you that.

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It is literally written down, people.

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIP: Wow!

ALLISON: With a Sharpie.

PHILLIP: That was very interesting. Thank you very much. I'm not sure whose world I would want to live in.

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure most men would agree with you that there shouldn't be too much cleavage.

ALLISON: Anywhere. Just don't get caught.

JENNINGS: Inaugural ball, fine. Capitol Rotunda, jail.

PHILLIP: I think -- I think Arthur's World might be like the least.

(LAUGHTER)

ALLISON: Right. He's like, who are you (INAUDIBLE)?

PHILLIP: All right, everyone, thank you very much.

NAVARRO: I want to know what the poodles (ph) are doing at the circus (ph).

PHILLIP: Thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, he has been president again for what, two days? And already a big shakeup at the Justice Department. But are the changes happening at the same time his administration needs the DOJ the most?

Plus, Trump is taking away Secret Service detail from one of his top critics, right there, John Bolton. His reason why and how Bolton is responding.

And America's Afghan allies' face being left behind once again. This over a new Trump order. One man's fight to stop it. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, President Trump is taking his first steps in overhauling the agency that he has been rallying and railing against the most, the DOJ. It's the very same Justice Department he needs to implement the dozens of executive orders that he has already signed, covering everything from immigration to government and its shape itself.

It's also the same DOJ he needs to fend off in an avalanche of legal challenges, and there is an avalanche. Lawsuits over his most controversial orders are already piling up as quickly as he was inking them. For example, 24 democratic states and cities are suing to stop his bid to end birthright citizenship. In just a moment, I'll talk with the attorney general from one of those states, Connecticut A.G. William Tong. For him, this fight is personal.

But first, here's what we know about the big shakeup inside the DOJ. Sources are telling CNN that at least 20 career senior officials have been reassigned, sidelining them from doing the work that they have really been doing for years. People inside the DOJ see it as a move to push these career prosecutors to pack up and leave.

Now, changes are also happening at key U.S. attorney offices in New York, also Washington, D.C. And in the Capitol, conservative activist Ed Martin is now the acting U.S. attorney. He was an organizer of the Stop the Steal movement, you might recall. Now, of course, Stop the Steal is what helped fuel January 6th.

And in another blow to morale, this comes as Trump undoes the years long work the DOJ prosecutors and in that very office carried out in delivering justice to the rioters who stormed that Capitol, the pardons and commutations he granted last night, applying to more than what, 1,500 rioters. Violent. Nonviolent as well. People who attacked the police officers like Michael Fanone are now free. Tonight, Trump was specifically asked about one of the men who went after Fanone. You know what? He doubled down on his decision.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER ALEXANDER, NBC NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: You would agree that it's never acceptable to assault a police officer, right? DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Sure.

ALEXANDER: So then, if I can, among those you pardoned, D.J. Rodriguez, he drove a stun gun into the neck of a D.C. police officer who was abducted by the mob that day. He later confessed on video to the FBI and pleaded guilty for his crimes. Why does he deserve a pardon?

TRUMP: Well, I don't know. Is it a pardon? Because we're looking at commutes and we're looking at pardons. Okay, well, we'll take a look at everything. At least the cases that we looked at, these were people that actually love our country. So, we thought a pardon would be appropriate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Interesting that he says, we'll take a look at everything. He already signed those pardons. He looked at the form while he was writing his name, which means it's done. You can't really undo the pardons, right? It's over, kaput. And it's what he promised to do, frankly, on the campaign trail. And just to drive that point home, the FBI is now scrubbing references, the January 6th riot. Many of the agency's websites taking down what it had referenced as well.

Joining me now, Donell Harvin, former chief of Homeland Security and Intelligence for Washington, D.C. and a faculty member at Georgetown University. Also here, Shan Wu, a defense attorney and former federal prosecutor as well. Glad to have all of you here.

We knew that the DOJ was going to be a focus for Trump. He talked about it many times on the campaign trail. Even after he was sworn in, frankly, he talked about it. Normally, prosecutors who are in divisions like the criminal division or national security, they can be political appointees at times, but there are also the line prosecutors underneath them.

[23:05:00]

So, what is this shakeup about?

SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, the shakeup about seems to be him fulfilling his idea that he's going clear the House and put in all his own people. The problem with the idea, easy to talk about it. But the very reason why you have these line prosecutors, the career people, is that's really the backbone of the institution. That's how things get done.

If you just start willy-nilly appointing new leaders, pretty steep learning curve, and particularly on the national security aspect, which I'm sure you know, there's a lot of liaison and talking with your counterparts at the intelligence services as well as FBI and law enforcement. So, when you eliminate the career institutional knowledge, you are kind of cutting off those connections, too. So, they have to reinvent the wheel, and that's not a very good idea.

COATES: I mean, every time there's a new president, there's a new U.S. attorney overseeing an office. But the idea of the institutional knowledge that Shan speaks about, particularly in the field of national security, when everyone has to kind of catch up and have that learning curve, but is it particularly problematic to clean House in that way and reassign a way from one's expertise in that field?

DONELL HARVIN, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY FACULTY MEMBER, FORMER CHIEF OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE AT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Absolutely, especially when we're facing so many threats, both domestic and international. We've talked about the multitude of threats against Donald Trump himself from Iran and Iranian proxies. We just came off of a New Year's Day where we had a terrorist attack, a major terrorist attack.

And so, we have this plethora of events that talk to a threat environment that is so profoundly dangerous. Why would you clear out some of your most knowledgeable counterterrorism and other law enforcement agencies in time like this? I don't know.

COATES: You know the U.S. attorney in D.C. We both were in that office prosecuting. Also, in New York, they have a replacement as well. The new acting D.C. attorney, though, is interesting, particularly. This is a man who organized the Stop the Steal movement. Now, remember, it's the D.C. prosecutors who were prosecuting the cases that just had pardons given for the work they had done.

When you're talking about that office in particular, being led by someone who was so intimately involved in that movement, what's the impact there, not to mention the undoing of the work that they had already done?

WU: Well, having been in that office, as you well know, Laura, I mean, folks are just going to put their nose to the grindstone and just keep going. You know, they'll keep doing all the cases they do every day to keep the people in D.C. safe.

But at the same time, that was an enormous -- a historically enormous effort for that office to undertake those hundreds and hundreds of the violent cases. And to undo all that, I mean, that's got to be sort of a sinking feeling, and particularly with this leadership in place, the people who really led the charge on those prosecutions have also got to be wondering a little bit, you know, am I going to get demoted because I don't have the right political cap on here?

COATES: You know, one of the people who was let go and pardoned yesterday was Enrique Tarrio. You and I have talked about him before and, of course, the context of that. He was a former leader of the Proud Boys. And he said this after being released today. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ENRIQUE TARRIO, SEDITIONIST, ACTIVIST, FORMER LEADER OF PROUD BOYS (voice-over): I'm happy that the president is focusing not on retribution and focusing on success. But I will tell you that I'm not going to play by those rules. The people who did this, they need to feel the heat. They need to be put behind bars, and they need to be prosecuted. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Feel the heat. Now, of course, I'm not going to put words into his mouth, but that, I'm sure, is unnerving for people who were involved in the prosecution. And remember, you also have the so-called QAnon Shaman who threatened on X, he's going to go and buy guns. Of course, if you are pardoned, you get to have civil rights restored, right? You can buy guns. You can, you know, be in elected office. You can have other civil rights restored to you.

How dangerous, though, is that notion of they need to feel the heat? He talks about prosecution with the feel of the heat.

HARVIN: Yeah, this is the problem with, you know, pardoning these individuals. Generally, when you commit a crime and you're convicted, you do your time, and then you come out and you don't do that anymore, right? These individuals haven't had a time to ruminate on the activities that they've done. They're clearly not remorseful. And what he's -- you're talking about a white supremacist, far-right group. When he talks about feeling the heat, he's not talking about, you know, doing the legislative process.

COATES: Hmm.

HARVIN: He's talking about feeling the heat in the streets because that's exactly what the Proud Boys do. They take their arguments to the streets and they use violence.

COATES: Now, he was one that wasn't present on that particular day. He had been, I think, banned from the city for, if I'm not mistaken, removing a Black Lives Matter flag from some building. And in that way, it contributed to why he was pardoned, not commuted, as say Stuart Rhodes, I believe.

But that statement that he has made, the deterrence aspect of it, is there any hope, if you're a member of Congress or in this capital region and your federal buildings are implicated, do you have confidence that there's protection? I mean, how do you balance that now?

WU: I think you have confidence in the protection because those folks are doing their duty and as they risk their lives on January 6th.

[23:10:01]

But in terms of deterrence, you're not going to have any confidence at all. I mean, this is the opposite of deterrence. It's actually encouraging people to act in Trump's name. And historically, it reminds me of things like the KKK, things like Mao's Red Guards where a politician is deliberately inciting mob violence to further their ends. That's what the real concern is.

COATES: And I wonder about the incoming attorney general who heads it, what review power would they have? They didn't have it. She didn't have it. If it's Pam Bondi, what that will be looking like for the members of the DOJ? Thanks so much, gentlemen. Keep asking the question, now what? Well, you know what? We need to talk about birthright citizenship, the principle that says born here, you're American. I mean, it's codified in the 14th Amendment. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. Straightforward enough.

So why are we talking about it? Because President Trump wants to end it. The question is, can he even do it with a stroke of a pen? Remember, changing the Constitution would require two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, three-fourths of the nation's state legislatures who would then need to ratify any change. So, what would be the argument he would make if he even could?

Well, first, a brief history lesson. Before the 14th Amendment was ratified, states were denying enslaved people the most basic rights under our Constitution. The Supreme Court reinforced that denial early on in cases like the Dred Scott decision, which ruled that enslaved people and their children could never be citizens of this country.

Now, at the end of the Civil War, one condition to the readmission to the Union was that former slave-holding states had to accept the principle that, in plain language, if you're born here, you are an American.

But what if your parents weren't born here, but you were? Well, in one case from, I think, the 1800s, United States versus Wong Kim Ark, a man who was born in San Francisco went to visit his Chinese citizen parents in China. When he tried to return to the United States, they wouldn't let him back in the country. They argued somehow that he was not a citizen because of where his parents were born. The court reaffirmed again that principle, though. Born here, American. Birthright citizenship.

So, the question is, should the 14th Amendment even apply to undocumented persons? Well, the Supreme Court answered that. Back in 1982, they held that undocumented immigrants and their children are entitled to 14th Amendment protections.

So, the only remaining argument is whether undocumented persons are, there's that language again, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If they are, the 14th Amendment applies and born here, American. But if they are not subject to jurisdiction, are they really Americans entitled to birthright citizenship?

Well, that's where we meet people like Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, one of now 22 state AGs, along with the District of Columbia and the city of San Francisco, who have filed lawsuits against that are asking the courts to reaffirm the principle of birthright citizenship and seek to block executive order from being implemented.

Attorney General William Tong, thank you so much for joining me today. A.G. Tong, it's important that we have these conversations because, as you know, Trump has targeted birthright citizenship for a while, not just this last 24, 36 hours. Talk to me about your confidence about the courts upholding birthright citizenship or you think it's more vulnerable than ever?

WILLIAM TONG, ATTORNEY GENERAL, CONNECTICUT: No, I think we're on as solid ground as you can have constitutionally and legally. Just look at the 14th Amendment. If you're a conservative -- let me ask my Republican friends. If you're a conservative, if you're a textualist, if you're originalist, just look at the words. The 14th Amendment is clear. If you're born on American soil or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you're an American citizen, period. And that's true for millions of Americans, including this guy.

I'm an American citizen. My parents were both immigrants. They were not citizens when I was born. And I am an American citizen by right of my birth in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1973.

COATES: Hmm, Hartford, Connecticut in 1980 for this one right here.

TONG: There you go.

COATES: There you go. So, I had to say Saint Francis Hospital. Let me ask you, A.G. Tong, on this point because you mentioned the word subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That phrase seems to be the latest iteration of the argument being made to suggest it should not apply to children of undocumented immigrants. They are not somehow subject to jurisdiction thereof, as if they're diplomats in some respect. What do you make of that argument and how will you fight against that proposal?

TONG: Yeah, I don't see that because you don't even have to get to the second stanza, just stay in the first clause, right?

[23:15:00]

People born on American soil, people born here in the United States, and that's what we're talking about. We're talking about the roughly 7,400 kids that are going to be born in Connecticut this year like us, right? Who should be Americans, who under the Constitution are Americans.

But Trump is trying to blow this whole thing up and really launch an attack on the American people and who we are as a nation. It was Ronald Reagan who said that birthright citizenship was one of our greatest strengths. And now, he seeks to upend that and to what end?

I mean, what's going to happen to these kids and these babies and these families? What status will they have, if any? Will they be effectively stateless? And what will happen to their parents and their housing and their jobs and their healthcare?

The chaos that we will see that President Trump is bringing to these families is unconscionable, and that's why we've gone to court today.

COATES: You know, courts don't like to wrestle with political questions that are better left for the other branches of government. But this is an issue of interpreting the Constitution, the 14th Amendment. You know what it takes to change a constitutional amendment, of course. But you're fighting against a political headwind. And one of that includes that there is an argument being made that people are engaged in, and the phrase they use is birth tourism.

TONG: Yeah.

COATES: That it undermines the core principle of birthright citizenship and instead is being exploited. How do you combat that legally in your suit?

TONG: Yeah, I think that's a hateful fantasy, frankly, and I don't see evidence of it. I see people who we need in Connecticut, who we need as part of our economy, people who are working, who are contributing like my family, like my parents. They came here with nothing. They worked in a Chinese restaurant. They worked seven days a week, 12 to 15 hours a day. They worked themselves sick. I watched them do it.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TONG: And in one generation, I went from working side by side with my parents in a hot Chinese restaurant in Wethersfield, Connecticut to being the attorney general of our state. That is the enduring beauty of our country. It is the core of the American dream, and that's what we're fighting for.

COATES: You're joined in your cause by many other attorneys general who are going to be, frankly, on the front lines of a lot of these issues, particularly when the implementation will be at a local level or the denial of it as well. As an attorney general, you see that role in the new Trump administration as really on the line of resistance. Is your focus on fighting the policies, fighting him? How will you be viewed politically?

TONG: We're fighting for the people of our states. We're building a firewall around Connecticut and other states that are going to be attacked and impacted by Donald Trump and his agenda. And if his agenda harms and impacts Connecticut, if we have good claims and defenses and I have standing, I'm going to take an action, and that's true about my fellow attorneys general, mostly Democratic colleagues.

And, frankly, we've been on this firewall. I've been attorney general for now going on seven years.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TONG: So, I was here for the second half of Trump 1, and I'm here for Trump 2.0., and we're more ready for this fight than we've ever been.

COATES: So, specifically, what are you asking in this suit?

TONG: We're asking a federal judge to declare that this action is what it is, unconstitutional, utterly lawless, and to impose a nationwide injunction stopping the president from denying the fundamental constitutional rights that people are due under the Constitution, that if you're born in America, If you're born in Hartford Hospital, if you're born in Cincinnati, if you're born in Texas, if you're born in California, you're an American.

COATES: Do you have a timeline that you wish the court will rule on that particular order?

TONG: We're going to move as quickly as we can. We're going to try -- we're seeking an injunction.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TONG: A TRO as soon as possible. Our case has 18 states in the District of Columbia and the city of San Francisco --

COATES: Yup.

TONG: -- and we're going hard to protect the people in our states and the American people.

COATES: Attorney General William Tong, thank you so much.

TONG: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Well, first, it was General Milley's portrait that was removed. Now, Trump has taken it up a bit of a notch, removing Secret Service protection for one of Iran's top targets, the former National Security advisor, John Bolton. So, why did he do it? We'll have Trump's answer for you ahead.

Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIANN EDGAR BUDDE, BISHOP, EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF WASHINGTON: I was looking at the president because I was speaking directly to him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The episcopal bishop of Washington speaking out after delivering a stunning sermon today that now has her facing political blowback. Van Jones and my panel live with me on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, that didn't take long. President Trump wasting no time, enacting revenge against his critics within hours of taking office, taking away security clearance and Secret Service protection from his former national security advisor, a man by the name, well, you guessed it, John Bolton.

He became a vocal critic of the president following his exit from the White House back in 2019. He is known for his hawkish foreign policy positions. Bolton has been the subject of many threats from Iran for years, including even an assassination attempt. He says he feels disappointed, but not surprised. Well, you know, Trump is standing by that decision tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think that was enough time. We take a job. You take a job. You want to do a job. We're not going to have security on people for the rest of their lives. Why should we?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:24:55]

COATES: I want to bring in CNN political commentator and former Obama administration official, Van Jones, Republican strategist Lance Trover, and Politico's White House bureau chief, Dasha Burns. Glad to have you all on here with me.

I'll go to you first, Dasha, on this because first, it was taking down the picture of Milley. Now, it's Bolton's detail. What's the motivation? Is it petty or principled?

DASHA BURNS, WHITE HOUSE BUREAU CHIEF, POLITICO: Well, look, we heard on the campaign trail him saying that success will be my revenge.

COATES: Hmm.

BURNS: But then you had the sort of MAGA base, the Steve Bannons of Trump world saying no, no, no, we got to go after some of these enemies, some of the people that have been detractors of President Trump. And I just spoke to a Trump aide on background who told me -- leveled up even more than what we heard from Trump there saying, if Bolton thinks he can abuse the system in order to make himself feel like a special person, he should get himself checked out.

So, he's coming out of the gate here, laying it down. This is my Washington. I'm going to do this my way.

COATES: It's pretty personal, Lance. This is somebody, by the way, who has gotten many threats. I mean, just listen to what Fox's Brit Hume had to say, who is not, by the way, a Bolton fan. It says in the tweet that, "I don't care much about Bolton losing his security clearance but I wish Trump had not pulled his security detail. He got that detail because Iran has a price on his head." People know that's the case. Why do this?

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER SPOKESPERSON FOR DOUG BURGUM'S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: I know people who have threats from Iranians that do not have security. There's a lot of people who have done a lot of good things in our government every single day that walk around and do not have security details. I guess I can throw around a bunch of cliches here. One of them is to the victor go the spoils, elections have consequences, and that's what we're dealing with here.

But you talk about things that were said about John Bolton. What are the things that John Bolton chose over the last several years to say about Donald Trump? And many of those things, obviously, the voters of this country disagreed with over 77 million on November 5th.

COATES: Van, let me bring you into this because, obviously, this feels like a personal motive. There might be additional political reasons or budgetary concerns, certainly, but it seems like the priority here was to say, Bolton, you know what you did. Should he have taken away the detail?

VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, let's put it this way. What if three weeks from now, Iran kills him?

COATES: Hmm.

JONES: I mean, this is a problem. Right now, you just heard a bunch of stuff that might make sense in a high school cafeteria. Nan-nan-yoo- poo-poo. This is real life. Why should we protect someone? Because it's more important to stop Iran from killing Americans, for doing their jobs, than it is to have a petty vendetta.

And this is the problem: If John Bolton is murdered, it is a massive scalp for Iran. It shows the world that, and everybody who works for the United States government, that our most vicious enemies can get to us because of a president who does not focus on the security of the American people. He focuses on the security of his own ego.

COATES: Dasha, you know, he could possibly pay for his own security detail, as has been suggested. Why is that not enough?

BURNS: Well, look, Iran has been a threat to President Trump as well, right? I think what we've seen from President Trump over the last 24 hours or so is him playing all of the different versions of Trump that got all of these factions, all of these different coalitions, right? He's the vengeful Trump that the MAGA base loves. He's the TikTok Trump that the youth vote -- voted for.

The problem is that not all of these are necessarily congruous, right, and cohesive. And how do those different versions of him work together or potentially clash as you have these (INAUDIBLE), the broligarchs, as Steve Bannon called them recently? You have the America first populace, the techno feudalists, all of these different groups that all have different agendas that at some point are going to have to come to a head.

COATES: I'm going to ask you, Van, on this point. I'll come back to you on this issue, Lance, as well. But there was this other big moment today during the national prayer service. The bishop who was critical of President Trump, she closed her sermon with a plea for mercy. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUDDE: I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country. We're scared now. There are gay, lesbian, and transgender children in Democratic, Republican, and independent families. Some who fear for their lives. The vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors.

TRUMP: Not too exciting, was it? I didn't think it was a good service, no. They can do much better.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And some Republicans are pretty peeved about what she had to say. In fact, Congressman Mike Collins, I believe, is calling for her deportation. What did you make of her remarks?

JONES: As a Christian, I was proud.

[23:30:00]

You know, our faith is -- there are two kinds of Christians. There's a state religion Christians that kind of signed off on everything from slavery to wars because they want to fit in with the system. And then there are people who really follow the spirit of Jesus, who stuck up for underdogs.

Jesus said, we're going to be judged by how we deal with the least of these: the addicted, the convicted, the afflicted, the evicted, the poorly depicted, the people who don't have very much. Those are the people for whom we're supposed to bear witness. If you want to go to a church where there's not going to be any witness born for the least of these, then, you know, find a good church that doesn't talk about anything.

But that is what Christians do. We stand for the people who have the least. And she did a good thing as a Christian. And if the world doesn't like it, we're not here to please the world.

COATES: Lance, what's your take, given it was the national prayer service and, obviously, given the politics of some of the cultural issues she spoke of, being very top of mind for this administration?

TROVER: I mean, a far-left, anti-Trump bishop in Washington, D.C., who would have guessed it? I thought it was wholly inappropriate. I mean, we're 24 hours out of this man's inauguration. She never would have done that with Barack Obama. She never would have done that with Joe Biden. But it's Donald Trump so, somehow, it's okay.

But here's what I think she doesn't understand, is that she actually hurts her cause by doing this because, to your point, it is topical, because these topics, she is so completely out of touch with the mainstream of America. I mean, this transgender issue is an 80-plus percent issue with Americans out there right now. These illegal immigrants, getting them out of the country, is a 60-70% issue with Americans out there right now.

So, I don't think she did herself any good. So, when she goes -- when somebody like that goes on like a far-left rant like that, it serves her no good with voters out there who just turned back to Donald Trump and say, oh, yeah, this is why I voted for this guy, because --

JONES: How is mercy far-left? What's far-left about mercy?

TROVER: Mercy -- I'm saying where she is on these issues, Van. Come on, you know it. These are 80% issues when it comes to this transgender issue, when it comes to getting criminal illegals out of this country. I mean, these are not -- these aren't like 10% issues here. Sixty, 70%, 80% of this country. And that's fine.

But to do this, to do this at the National Prayer Breakfast, you're going to agree with me, they never would have done that to Barack Obama. They never would have done that to Joe Biden.

JONES: Let me just say, Barack Obama was challenged by the church on his treatment of immigrants. He was actually called the deporter-in- chief. And the Bible isn't a popularity contest. The Bible is not up for a vote or a poll. We stand for the least of these. That's what Christians do.

COATES: Dasha?

TROVER: Yeah, but we also stand for the rule of law.

BURNS: I just want to bring in, if I could, one of the most fascinating things for me reporting on Trump on the campaign trail was his relationship to religious people, and then his own relationship to religion itself. I was struck by an event at the National Faith Advisory Board.

Pastor Paula White, who has been his spiritual advisor for a while, was interviewing him on stage and set him up multiple times to talk about his personal relationship with God, his personal faith. And time and again, he kind of dodged the central question.

He talked about loving churches, thinking they're beautiful buildings. He talked about enjoying Sunday school. But he neglected. And again, she threw those softballs. He could have knocked it out of the park. He could never put his finger on his own faith or give any insight to people about that.

And I just found that really striking, given how much he has elevated both politically and culturally evangelicals, Christian nationalists even, but he himself has never really been able to present his own ideology of faith.

COATES: Should he have done so without risk of being criticized for having focused on it to his detriment?

BURNS: I think that his evangelical supporters have certainly asked for it. But at the same time, you know, they say he gave us the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade. So, potentially, that is much more important to them. But it is an interesting dichotomy there.

COATES: Something tells me this criticism is not over. Thank you so much, everyone. Up next, the Trump administration's promise to carry out mass deportations of criminals, what we're learning about how far they're going to go, and the new sensitive areas, speaking of churches, they'll now be able to target. One of the most moderate Democrats on the Hill, Congressman Greg Landsman, is with me to discuss this and much more next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, President Trump has only been in office for what, 36 hours? But every hour brings new changes to immigration policy. The latest one? Immigration agents can arrest people at so-called sensitive locations like churches, schools. A longstanding policy had urged agents to avoid those places. Now, a new policy encourages agents to -- quote -- "use common sense if they need to make arrests there."

And that's, frankly, just the start. Trump has also declared a national emergency at the border, ended the use of an app that helped migrants book immigration appointments, and he's attempting to end birthright citizenship. Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, warns that no one will be off limits.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, TRUMP ADMIN BORDER CZAR, FORMER ACTING ICE DIRECTOR: There's going to be more collateral arrests in sanctuary cities because they forced us to go in the community and find the guy we're looking for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, Congressman Greg Landsman, a Democrat from Ohio. He's one of a handful of Democrats who voted in favor of the immigration enforcement bill known as the Laken Riley Act.

Congressman, thank you so much for joining us today. There has been a lot of changes on this issue. But immigration, we knew, was going to be one of his priorities, and he's implementing policies. Let's talk about your vote on the Laken Riley Act.

[23:40:00]

It makes it easier to deport immigrants who are accused but not convicted of crimes like theft. Why do you support that?

REP. GREG LANDSMAN (D-OH): Arrested. So, this is a second crime. And most Americans are very pragmatic. I think they want us to tackle immigration and border security in a pragmatic way, which means working together. This ultimately was a bipartisan bill.

We're a nation of both immigrants and laws. And you have to pursue policies that embrace both. And so most Americans want those who've been here, you know, even if they've been here unlawfully for a long, long time, particularly children, to be left alone. If you're committing crimes, including violent crimes, that you go home. I think most Americans support that.

COATES: And, of course, the first crime, many people talk about, is having crossed the border and remaining in the country illegally. There had been thoughts that it would be a prioritization, though. That that wouldn't be enough to lead to a deportation as a first priority, but perhaps down the road. This suggests that if there is even a crime that's nonviolent in nature but property-related, theft --

LANDSMAN: Yeah.

COATES: -- that ought to be enough combined with the first crime of entering the nation. Is that enough for you?

LANDSMAN: I mean, look, I don't think Laken Riley or any of these sorts of one-off bills are going to solve the problem. I don't think anyone does, Republicans or Democrats. Most Americans would like to see Republicans and Democrats come together, do serious border security --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LANDSMAN: -- and fix the immigration system, which we've been pushing for decades. That means sending resources to the border, more border patrol officers, more asylum judges, changing the asylum process --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LANDSMAN: -- and making sure it's just for asylum seekers so that those folks can find refuge here in the United States, more technology, all that makes sense, has bipartisan support. There should also be legal pathways for those who are here and are working. And again, most people support that.

The vast majority of Americans don't want law enforcement coming into neighborhoods and just rounding up people and causing chaos at an enormous cost to taxpayers. They don't want that.

COATES: How do they feel about the idea of churches or schools? These are normally sensitive places. The policy has now changed. I think you don't speak for all voters, but how do you feel about the idea of that being opened up as a potential place to arrest and detain?

LANDSMAN: Yeah, I voted against a bill that said these places can't be spots, where local communities come and say, hey, we are going to support folks here.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LANDSMAN: Part of it is local control. I'm a big local control guy, and most Republicans used to believe in local control. And my sense is that this will be wildly unpopular if, in fact, law enforcement starts going into schools and churches.

COATES: So, you think they should not be allowed to go into those areas?

LANDSMAN: I mean, look, if there is a person who, again, has been arrested for a second crime, they should work with law enforcement and take care of it. But this idea of using law enforcement which -- by the way, our police officers have a lot of work to do. And most people want their police officers focused on them. And I don't think going in and rounding up people is what folks want. It's chaotic and it's ultimately cruel. And again, people want border security, they want immigration reform, they want order, but they also want it to be humane.

COATES: Is there going to be tension between your -- I mean, one of the biggest cities in your district is Cincinnati, of course.

LANDSMAN: Yeah.

COATES: A great, lovely place that I have recently been to. It's wonderful. But what about the tension between being a sanctuary city and the request from the federal government to facilitate what they want to do?

LANDSMAN: So, I was at City Hall for many, many years in Cincinnati, and so I've seen this up close, and it's very complicated. Most of our police officers are working overtime. I mean, they're working so hard to deal with crime in the city, getting guns off the street.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LANDSMAN: And while -- if there is a, you know, somebody who is committing domestic violence, they arrest somebody for some other criminal activity, they will obviously turn that person over, but they do not want to be asked to go and all of a sudden start rounding up families. That's not -- there will be pushback. And it won't be from politicians. It will be from community leaders and it will be from law enforcement.

COATES: Well, we'll see. The lawyers are going to enter into the fray somewhere. They always do. Congressman, thank you for joining me today.

[23:45:00]

LANDSMAN: Thanks.

COATES: Up next, a consequence of President Trump's new action to curtail America's refugee program. The Afghan allies who helped America in the war are now at risk of being left stranded. Again, the man leading the effort to stop it from happening joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, thousands of U.S. allies could be at risk tonight. That after Trump signed an executive order declaring the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program as being detrimental to the interests of the United States.

[23:49:58]

Now, this program includes the approval and resettlement of Afghan refugees here in the United States. I'm talking about people who served alongside the U.S. Military, people who worked for U.S.-run NGOs and missions, people whose family are U.S. Service members, people who put their lives at risk in order to assist the United States before the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, people who were promised by multiple administrations their aid and service would indeed be recognized.

Well, here's what Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, said about them on CNN just earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOMAN: We know that a lot of these refugees weren't properly vetted. There are things we need to fix that the last administration broke before we allowed the program to continue. So, we're on it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, the program now is on pause starting January 27th for 90 days. Currently, there are around 2,000 Afghan refugees who are already approved to resettle in the states. Now their status is in limbo. That doesn't count the thousands of others who are waiting for approval.

Joining me now, Shawn VanDiver. He is the founder of AfghanEvac, the coalition working with the government to evacuate and resettle Afghans in the United States.

Shawn, this has been a very important period of time right now as we're learning more information about their decisions. What message does this send, though, to the world and potential future allies?

SHAWN VANDIVER, FOUNDER, AFGHANEVAC: Well, thank you for having me on tonight. The message that it sends is that the United States commitments are temporary and conditional. And that simply can't be true if we want our service men and women to be able to go downrange and execute against the United States interests. We have to be able to keep our commitments.

COATES: How instrumental were these people to the ability of our U.S. Military to be successful?

VANDIVER: Look, the truth is that veterans of my generation, the post 9/11 generation, veterans of Vietnam era, anyone who served with partner forces in country or with partners in country, would tell you that they were absolutely instrumental. We couldn't do our job without them. And in many cases, they saved our lives.

I -- you know, Mr. Homan talked about vetting. I mean, he's simply incorrect, right? The United States Refugee Admissions Program is the gold standard of vetting. And for me and my buddies, the gold standard is, did we throw them a gun and they had our backs? Well, they did.

COATES: So, what happens now to those 2,000 or so Afghans who were previously approved to settle here?

VANDIVER: Look, that number is just the number of people that we expected to be on flights over the course of four months. COATES: Hmm.

VANDIVER: The actual number is much larger. The actual number is -- actually, tonight, we're hearing rumors that the State Department may be pausing refugee movements. We're not really sure if it's globally. Somebody should call them and ask them.

But look, thousands and thousands of these folks, folks who were family of U.S. Service members, folks who were prosecutors and lawyers who put the Taliban in jail, folks who were women pilots in the Afghan military and partner forces who served alongside our brothers and sisters in uniform, all of these folks, all these folks who are in the refugee pipeline, are people who are for one reason or another at risk because of their association with us, and we simply cannot let an association with Americans be the reason that people are being hunted down, and we have to do something about it.

COATES: Have you heard from any of them? I mean, what are they telling you? What's their reaction today?

VANDIVER: Listen, people are panicking. People are really worried. And the truth is that we don't know what comes next, right? We're still waiting on implementation guidance from the State Department. And the way this was rolled out was, frankly, left a lot to be desired, right? Nobody at State Department knew this was coming, we don't think.

And what it did is it caused panic amongst advocates, amongst our veterans, and amongst the Afghans themselves who have been waiting already for three and a half years for us to keep our commitments to them. They've waited long enough.

COATES: What about the 180,000, I think, plus refugees who've already settled here since the withdrawal? Are they now concerned about being at risk of being deported?

VANDIVER: So, there are both refugees and SIVs, they're special immigrant visa holders.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

VANDIVER: Neither of them should be worried about being deported. So far, we don't think that's going to happen. They haven't made any indications of that. In fact, President Trump had a lot to say about the Afghanistan withdrawal during the campaign, during the RNC. And look, we think that this was a mistake. We hope that they are willing to come to the negotiating table.

President Trump loves to make a deal. We're ready to make a deal. Let's make sure that we're able to provide a carve out for Afghans to make sure that we're able keep our promise. We know that he has friends who served alongside our forces.

[23:55:00]

Friends -- he's a friend to Afghans. We know that he can be a friend to Afghans, and we want to see him do that. COATES: For people who want to help and need more information to better understand this, where can they go?

VANDIVER: Check out our social media. We're at AfghanEvac or afghanevac.org. We need you to sign our letter, we need you to donate, and we need you to tell your elected officials to take an action on this.

COATES: Shawn VanDiver, thank you so much. Very illuminating on this very important issue. Thank you.

VANDIVER: Thank you so much for having me tonight.

COATES: And thank you all so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360," he's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)