Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump's Funding Freeze Sparks Chaos And Confusion; Caroline Kennedy Calls RFK Jr. A "Predator"; Go-Bags And Anxiety As Trump Begins Revenge; Trump Reveals Explanation For Mystery Drones; Jon Stewart Rips Democrats For "Fascism" Freak-Out Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired January 28, 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]
BILL STEPIEN, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE POLITICAL DIRECTOR: There is no item of greater cultural significance to New Jerseyans than the first album that skyrocketed our favorite -- our favorite son to fame and stardom. Bruce Springsteen's 1975 "Born to Run," it is beautiful from beginning to end. It makes me cry still.
(LAUGHTER)
It needs to be preserved and treasured, put in the museum.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, I'm not going to comment, actually, on that one.
JENNA ARNOLD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER BIDEN AND FETTERMAN SURROGATE: You don't have one.
PHILLIP: No, I'm just not going to comment on the Springsteen of it --
ARNOLD: But --
PHILLIP: -- but I appreciate the -- I appreciate the admiration --
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: -- for Bruce. Everyone, thank you very much. Thank you all for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a Trump- ordered freeze federal aid sparking nationwide confusion and now a legal intervention. Is a constitutional clash on the horizon? Plus, Caroline Kennedy's brutal takedown of RFK Jr. This on the eve of his very high stakes confirmation hearing. The big question though is, will it make any difference? And the Trump White House says what was really going on over New Jersey. But is the public buying it? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
So, you know that phrase, move fast and break things? The one made famous by Mark Zuckerberg? Well, at the last 24 hours or any indication, it seems President Trump is following that very same motto. On day eight of his second term, he tried to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans. More on that in a second. He signed an executive order that banned gender reassignment procedures for minors, offered buyouts to federal workers. He fired two Democrats on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and fired the chair of the National Labor Relations Board. And his team confirmed that they want to arrest around 1,900 people every day in his immigration crackdown. That's at a minimum, by the way. The man dubbed "the great disruptor" is certainly disrupted.
But here's the kicker, everyone. We're talking about the federal government of the United States, not some startup. Things can go really wrong really quickly for millions of Americans. Case in point, that freeze on federal aid. Well, tonight, a federal judge has temporarily pumped the brakes. But for most of today, it was chaos. It was confusion. A vaguely-worded but incredibly broad memo left people asking, who would be impacted? Would 800,000 low-income children lose access to their early education programs? Would two million seniors still be getting food from Meals on Wheels?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELLIE HOLLANDER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MEALS ON WHEELS AMERICA: The uncertainty, the chaos that has happened since last evening when we heard about this has caused a lot of grave concern on the part of older adults who rely on Meals on Wheels as a lifeline.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, the White House eventually had to step in and to clarify, insisting that the order was really meant to be more limited.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is not a blanket pause on federal assistance and grant programs from the Trump administration. Individual assistance, that includes, I'm not naming everything that's included, but just to give you a few examples, social security benefits, Medicare benefits, food stamps, welfare benefits. Assistance that is going directly to individuals will not be impacted by this pause.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, there's one problem because some of that aid that she's talking about may pass through other places before it goes to individual people which, of course, one reporter was quick to point out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: It wasn't clear to me whether you were saying that no Medicaid would be cut off. Obviously, a lot of this goes to states before it goes to individuals and so forth. Are you guaranteeing here that no individual now on Medicaid would see a cut off because of the pause? LEAVITT: I'll check back on that and get back to you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: How comforting. State officials were able to check on that, by the way. They said the online portal that they used to receive federal Medicaid funds wasn't working. And the White House says it's aware and expects it to be back online shortly. No word from the administration on whether it has been fixed, but we'll get back to you on that.
Joining me now, senior political correspondent for "The Wall Street Journal," Molly Ball, Republican strategist Lance Trover, and former senior spokesperson for the Harris-Walz campaign, Adrienne Elrod. Good to have all of you here.
I mean, this is day eight, I want to remind everyone, just -- so buckle up, buttercups, on this. Molly, let me ask you. Trump freezing federal aid, it was blocked until now -- this upcoming Monday afternoon, a bit of a pause of the status quo. But the confusion and the chaos, it certainly remains. And Trump called it -- he called for a revolution of common sense.
[23:05:01]
Is this in line with that thinking or is this problematic for even him?
MOLLY BALL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, I think it depends where it all ends up. Obviously, some things were over-implemented in ways that the White House is now saying we're not their intent. You know, that whole idea of move fast and break things, the idea is if you don't disrupt the status quo, you're never going to get anything done.
So, they clearly want to come out of the gate, getting stuff done in a very forceful way, and then rolling back whatever didn't sit right, which is a faster way to do things than case by case saying, what it is you do want to cut off?
And then there are the questions about whether the president even is allowed to do any of this, given that the Constitution says that it's Congress that gets to decide where federal money goes, where taxpayer money goes, and to what?
So, a lot of issues to sort out here, and what I think we don't know is at the end of the day, when all the pieces settle, how much are they really taking away? And I think even they don't know yet exactly what is on that menu.
COATES: I will say there's some new reporting because today, Marco Rubio, obviously, who has now recently been confirmed, he issued a waiver for life-saving humanitarian assistance to include core life- saving medicine, medical services, food, shelter, and subsistence assistance, as well as supplies and reasonable administrative costs. So, you've got the concern about what foreign aid would be impacted by all of this. Let me ask you on this, Lance. I mean, the OMB sent out instructions and it was to agencies asking for details on more than 2,600 programs. That's quite the bureaucratic call to do that with. But among the questions included, does this program promote gender ideology? Does this program promote or support in any way abortion? Does this program provide federal funding to NGOs supporting or providing service to undocumented migrants? If the answer is yes, then what? Congress appropriated, of course, these funds. So, what are they trying to elicit from them?
LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER SPOKESPERSON FOR DOUG BURGUM'S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Well, those are all Trump priorities or not Trump priorities. You know -- I mean, he does not -- you know, he does not support, you know, money going to illegal immigrants. So that's the basis of all of this.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
TROVER: Look, this is going to get sorted out by a judge really soon. I think we should take a 30,000-foot view of what Americans are going to be waking up and looking at tomorrow morning. They're going to be pulling up their phones, and they're going to be seeing a headline that says, Donald Trump wants to freeze federal, spending trillions of dollars, and have a review of taxpayer dollars and how they're spent.
On the other hand, you're going to have, like we always do, Washington bureaucrats, Democrats screaming bloody murder that Donald Trump is going to end the world as we know it, something they become way used to and they adjudicate on November 5th, and I think that's what they're going to see, and I would give the advantage to Donald Trump on the headlines when they come out tomorrow morning.
COATES: Do you really think that this is a hair on fire moment when there is the confusion as to whether aid is coming down? I mean, that's a significant question for people to wonder about. And, of course, yes, judges could hash things out, but the interim in the meantime for the everyday person can be devastating and debilitating and uncertain just at a basic level. So, is it really that wrong for them to question and wonder, is this really part of the mandate you're talking about?
TROVER: Nothing has even happened yet. That's what I'm saying, this hair on fire is happening when nothing has even happened.
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR SPOKESPERSON FOR HARRIS-WALZ CAMPAIGN: But a lot has happened.
COATES: A lot has happened.
ELROD: Medicare payments stopped going out. That is not what the people who voted for Trump voted for.
TROVER: That was a blip that was corrected within a couple of hours. That's what I'm saying. No one has missed any payments anywhere. This is -- everybody's rate, it's inside the Beltway rage that's going on that no one in America is really focused on. That's what I'm saying. Tomorrow morning, that's the headlines they're going to see, and they're once again see bureaucrats and Democrats hair on fire when nothing has really happened.
ELROD: I going to disagree with you on this. I think the average American, especially those who voted for Trump, are going to wake up tomorrow morning and saying, wait a minute here, I did want someone to disrupt the system, I wanted somebody to come in, you know, maybe cut some funding here and there, but I didn't want my Medicaid to be at risk, I didn't want my Social Security or Medicare to be at risk.
The payment system broke down today because Trump made this crazy, crazy, you know, unauthorized order. And, by the way, this is also -- we have to look at this from the standpoint that these are funds that have already been authorized by Congress. There's a system of checks and balances in this country. I realize that Donald Trump does not care about that. That's not something that he is really focusing on, but it is something that our Constitution mandates and stands for. And there's a reason why Congress already appropriated these funds. So, that's why the courts issued the stay today.
We'll see what happens. But I think this is something that a lot of Americans are looking at this and saying, this is not what we voted for.
COATES: You know, I can't -- I know that pearl clutching is passe. However, I can't be dismissive of the everyday person who is in fear of losing things that are going to benefit their salary, on fixed incomes and beyond. That's a very real fear for people to have. But then there's the motivation behind it. And Molly, in a heated exchange with Jake Tapper, the top Trump advisor or one of the top Trump advisors, Stephen Miller, revealed perhaps the why. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR POLICY: What I'm saying to you is this. There are two million employees in the federal government.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Right.
[23:10:00]
MILLER: They're overwhelmingly left to center. The American people -- I've got to finish the sentence.
TAPPER: Okay.
MILLER: I got to finish the sentence. The American people voted for dramatic change implemented by Donald Trump. So, it is essential for him to get control of government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, is it cost cutting or control of government in the sense of the left leaning assumption? BALL: Well, look, I will say, and we pulled this a couple of weeks ago in our "Wall Street Journal" poll, and the majority of voters did say that they want dramatic change. They want to see big things change. And this was litigated during the election. Democrats were constantly accusing Trump of authoritarian intentions and wanting to be a fascist and a dictator. And the American people looked at that and said either they didn't believe it or it didn't bother them too much, in part because I think people are frustrated with what they see as the gridlock and bloat and sort of stasis --
COATES: Sure.
BALL: -- of the government. I think the idea in the abstract of shaking things up is something that a lot of people support. On the other hand, this idea that everybody hates Washington bureaucrats isn't necessarily true either. In that same poll, we asked people whether they would want to see, you know, thousands of civil servants replaced with people of the president's choosing, and we didn't say, you know, people politically loyal to the president or that sort of prejudicial language. In that case, it was 61-31. People were against it.
So, this idea of remaking the civil service into a sort of army of loyalty to the president is not necessarily something that, as much as we think people hate, you know, Washington and bureaucrats, not necessarily something people are on board with. And I think it's going to take -- to Lance's point, it's going to take some of this stuff actually being implemented, going into effect, seeing, okay, now Trump does have the ability, as maybe he didn't in his first term --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
BALL: -- to get things done in the way he sees fit, to actually implement a lot of his plans, no matter what the critics say. There's much less of the sort of obstruction that bottled him up before. Do people actually like that in practice?
COATES: I agree the smoke will clear. What are your thoughts?
TROVER: Yeah, I agree with some of what you said. I think you made a very valid point. We're eight days in, eight days in, and this is exactly what happened in 2017. This is what I was talking about earlier. And this to me is always the question for the Democrats. How are you going to proceed? Over 77 million people in this country put Donald Trump back into office. There was no one more clear about what he was going to do than Donald Trump. We've never had a candidate for office as clear as he was about what he's going to do. So that to me is always a question for Democrats.
ELROD: That's a fact.
TROVER: And to me, what I've seen happen today is they are just reverting back to the never Trump, raging about every single decision that is made. I just don't think that's what the public is ready for right now, eight days into this administration. COATES: Adrienne, I wonder how you see this idea of the mandate and sort of a carte blanche to everything he wants to do, including those who he wants confirmed in positions in his cabinet. For example, RFK Jr. You've got one Kennedy family member, a very notable one, I should mention, who is speaking out on the eve of his confirmation hearing. And it's his cousin, Caroline, telling senators in her own voice, reading actually the letter as well, to reject his nomination. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAROLINE KENNEDY, DAUGHTER OF FORMER PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY: I've known Bobby my whole life. We grew up together. It's no surprise that he keeps birds of prey as pets because Bobby himself is a predator. Bobby preys on the desperation of parents of sick children, vaccinating his own kids while building a following, hypocritically discouraging other parents from vaccinating theirs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The numbers are not on the side of voting against confirming him.
ELROD: Right.
COATES: But who do you think her intended audience is?
ELROD: Well, first of all, I think it's important to take a step back and realize that this is a very significant thing that Caroline Kennedy did today. She is somebody who is known to be really -- you know, operates behind the scenes. She was just the ambassador to Australia. I know her well. For her to come out and say something like this is a really profound moment. It's something she knew that would break through. She knew that she was going to be using her voice, you know, at a very important time in this country, especially given her stature on the Kennedy family and given her relationship to Bobby.
So, I think -- look, I don't know how much of a difference it's going to make when it comes to the actual vote, but I think that this is something that is going to break through and really resonate with a lot of senators who are currently on the fence in terms of whether they're going to support him or not.
And she made some very, very valid points. You know, there's so much noise out there right now. There's so much, you know, that's happening. And I think, you know, when there are so many confirmations also going on in the Senate, it's oftentimes that, you know, you're focusing on, you know, this person to confirm or this person to confirm.
And to have her come out at this moment and really break through on Bobby right before his Senate confirmation hearing is really profound, and I think it's something again that will impact a lot of people when they decide how they're going to support him or not support him.
COATES: I wonder if the pause will resonate in a way that influences how they will vote.
TROVER: We saw this happen with Pete Hegseth last week.
[23:14:58]
I think folks in the Senate and the public are kind of tired of these last-minute injections before a confirmation vote or before a confirmation hearing. We saw it play out last week with Hegseth. This is somewhat similar to me. I'm not sure it's going to make a whole lot of difference.
COATES: Well, we will see. I'm sure there's no invitation to the family picnic, either way.
(LAUGHTER)
Thank you so much, everyone. We will see how it all unfolds. Up next, go bags and anxiety as Trump critics now come face to face with his revenge tour. The fears ramping up as the White House confirms it was Trump himself who approved the purge of the DOJ. The attorney representing some of Trump's top targets is going to join me tonight.
And later, remember that drone mystery? It has taken on a whole new life now, after the Trump White House offers up a curious explanation on what really happened.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Breaking news tonight, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will remove the security detail of retired General Mark Milley and order an investigation into him. It is the clearest sign yet that Trump is determined to exact retribution against his perceived enemies. Trump chose Milley to be his chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2019.
[23:20:01]
But Milley rebuffed Trump's efforts to use the military on people protesting in 2020. Now that, of course, sparked a months-long falling out. And after Trump left office, Milley called him -- quote -- "fascist to the core." This comes as other officials targeted by Trump for retribution are taking drastic action. "The Washington Post" reports that some people are hiring attorneys, packing go-bags, even buying weapons.
With me now, national security attorney Mark Zaid and CNN military analyst, retired colonel Cedric Leighton. I will note, of course, that Biden also gave a preemptive pardon to Milley as well.
Colonel Leighton, we begin with you here because Hegseth is ordering an investigation into the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley. This statement about calling Trump a fascist, that seems to be the sin that he has committed in Trump's mind. But tell me about just the ramifications of investigating someone of this stature within the military.
CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL: Yeah, well, basically, it has never happened before, Laura. You know, when you look at the smaller things such as the removal of the portrait for denoting Milley's time as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and now they're supposedly going to remove the portrait denoting his time as chief of staff of the Army, that is one way to whitewash, you know, his past performance, General Milley's past performance.
But the other part of this is that in our history, since we've had a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you know, since the late 1940s, we have never had a situation like this for a senior officer of this type. There are ways in which grades can be reduced, and that is perhaps one of the ways that Secretary Hegseth is looking at doing this, but it's clearly a big signal to the military to get in line or else there will be potential ramifications.
COATES: I will note one thing that I remember. General Milley said, once he received the pardon from Biden, he said, I do not wish to spend whatever remaining time the Lord grants me fighting those who unjustly might seek retribution for perceived slights. I do not want to put my family, my friends, and those with whom I served through the resulting distraction, expense, and anxiety.
Now, the statement from the Pentagon that was just released says the secretary informed General Milley today that he is revoking the authorization for his security detail and suspending his security clearance as well. Secretary has also directed the DOD I.G. to conduct an inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding General Milley's conduct so the secretary may determine whether it's appropriate to reopen his military grade review determination.
Mark, let me turn to you on this idea of the revocation of security clearance and certainly a detail as well. You have clients that you work with that are quite familiar with retribution. Is this going to be the type that we will expect to see? It seems like it's already underway.
MARK ZAID, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: It's clearly underway and it was absolutely predictable. We were saying this was going to happen prior to inauguration because they said they were going to do this. They've been saying it for quite some time. So, he actually is fulfilling his promises.
The suspension of the clearance, I don't know if the general still had an active eligibility. I mean, usually, someone of that stature would continue to be on for advice to the White House, to the Pentagon. But I imagine he had probably taken himself out of that loop so that he wasn't interacting anyway. So, it might not have that much effect other than, you know, usually someone of that rank will end up on boards of directors and, you know, major defense contractor companies. Whether they have access to classified information or not, they'll still have a clearance.
So, this could have a significant financial impact and a suspension is not deemed an adverse action. So, there is no due process associated with challenging a suspension. He will have to wait until a proposed revocation occurs if, in fact, that is even allowed to have due process because there are procedures where someone, especially in the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community, can have a revoco -- revi -- I can't say the word right -- a revoked security clearance and no due process. Absolutely none at all. Just strict. It has rarely happened. I've had one case in 35 years, and I'm not aware of any others.
COATES: Wow.
ZAID: But that's on the book. That would not be an abuse by this White House. That would be a use of existing law.
COATES: So, don't do process means no advanced notice? He likely learned when we were learning today and no opportunity to be heard and to sort of defend himself and get the benefit of the doubt going forward to have both sides be heard.
[23:25:05]
But what about this pardon that he received from Biden? Obviously, the pardon was preemptive. It would have likely no impact, though, on his ability to participate or not participate in inspector general's investigation, right?
ZAID: So, the concern with his pardon was that he would be recalled to active duty and subject to court martial for whatever offense they might make. That at least looks to be taken off the table. We'll see if the secretary through the I.G. wants to look at whether or not he acted in the current -- we'll know the language better. You know, bad conduct -- whatever the last time of his rank, where he deserves to have it rescinded.
And I've worked on some cases with that over the years in the Pentagon. We've taken a star away from a general because of their misconduct with having affairs while married and things like that.
But, you know, we'll wait and see. I guess the one good thing for the general is, having myself spent decades with that office, they take forever. So, we might not see any investigation completed for two, three, four years unless, of course, Trump puts in his loyalist as the I.G., and then we'll see how quickly that investigation goes.
COATES: I mean, if past is prologue, it has been eight days and it has been a whirlwind of activity at a very speedy pace, so far. Colonel Leighton, let me ask you, what would be the impact if this investigation leads to a kind of demotion for him?
LEIGHTON: Yeah, that would be another case of a really unprecedented situation. I knew of at least one case within the Air Force where a general officer was demoted for something other than the kind of misconduct that Mark mentioned. This was a case where there were sexual assault allegations on and not against the general, but under his command. And those are the kinds of things that can happen where a person was demoted from three-star to two-star in that particular case.
So, the impact of having the chairman, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have their rank reduced from four-star to three-star would be significant, not just in the monetary way that Mark mentioned, but also in a psychological way because this is the number one officer in the American military by law, by statute. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the number one officer, the top advisor to the president on military affairs. And a person who has achieved that position, goes beyond rank, it's a position that would really mark a turning point in American military-civil relations, and it would be a negative turning point, for sure.
COATES: This is one area where retribution seems to be in full swing. Mark, "The Washington Post" is also reporting some of the career prosecutors who were fired by Trump in the last 24 hours, frankly. They're buying weapons, they're preparing go bags, buying weapons, it appears, for protection. But you've spoken to some of them. What are they telling you about their fears and what is the advice that you've been giving to them?
ZAID: Well, they're shocked. These individuals are generally, if not completely, career prosecutors. They worked under both administrations. They were pursuing the rule of law. And it's essentially anyone who touched any of Jack Smith's cases. And I dare say, I guarantee you, it's the FBI agents who worked on those cases who will be next on the chopping block.
The one thing I can say to all of these lawyers is, yes, we may very well have legal, viable legal claims to pursue, and those are being researched and in the works. Don't panic. Wait. Nobody should rush into anything. There are so many of them that this needs to be a very coordinated response. Frankly, it will take some time.
What I tell a lot of my clients in these positions is this is a matter of a war, not a battle. It's obviously not a physical war. So, hopefully, the Trumpers don't get that idea, the notion of it's going to take some time to go through this. But there are some very good constitutional arguments.
And as we've seen so far, the Trump administration, the White House keeps losing. It's only -- I think it has been a year and a half since this second administration has started or a week, I forget which one, I can't tell the difference any longer, but, you know, there will be some challenges, and hopefully nobody will rush to it so that we can properly prepare them.
COATES: You know, lawyers often give advice to their clients about trying to manage expectations, trying to quell their concerns. Until it happens to you, then you have to try to navigate the space as well. Mark Zaid, Colonel Cedric Leighton, thank you both so much.
ZAID: Any time.
[23:29:58]
COATES: Up next, the long-awaited answer on that drone mystery that happened in New Jersey. Except, is it really an answer or does the new administration just make it even more mysterious?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Well, the New Jersey drone mystery is now officially solved. Or is it? Is President Trump saying today that the mysterious objects flying over Jersey a couple months ago were, in fact -- quote -- "not the enemy?" Here's White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt with, as she called it, news directly from the president of the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: After research and study, the drones that were flying over New Jersey in large numbers were authorized to be flown by the FAA for research and various other reasons. Many of these drones were also hobbyists, recreational, and private individuals that enjoy flying drones.
[23:35:01]
In meantime -- in time, it got worse due to curiosity. This was not the enemy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, here's the thing. That is almost exactly what Biden officials were actually saying at the time. Remember that the drones were not nefarious. Listen to what Trump was saying then when he was president-elect.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Our military knows and our president knows. And for some reason, they want to keep people in suspense. Something strange is going on for some reason. They don't want to tell the people. And they should.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, will the public actually be satisfied with today's response, especially considering Trump didn't accept the explanation that was coming from the Biden administration?
I want to get right to Jon Bramnick, a Republican New Jersey State senator. He's also running for governor in that state. Also here is Rob D'Amico. He is a former FBI counter-drone unit chief. Thank you both for being here. I'll begin with you here, Jon. Does the Trump administration's explanation for the drone sightings, does it satisfy you?
SEN. JON BRAMNICK (R-NJ): Well, it's better than what we had. When we started this entire drone situation, we got the answer. We weren't seeing what we were seeing. That's a tough one for New Jerseyans to follow. And eventually, what happened was they started that classified briefings and people got quiet. And now, they're telling us it was FAA-approved and that it wasn't the enemy. If you recall, there was a congressman who said it was a ship off the shore with possibly enemy drones.
COATES: Hmm.
BRAMNICK: So, at least we're moving to some point where people say, okay, it was FAA- approved, and I think they mentioned there was some research going on. That's all they had to say back a month or two ago, and I don't think there would have been a crisis in New Jersey. But the answer we got was, no, there's nothing happening. At least now, we know there was something happening.
COATES: But are you satisfied, senator, to think about research? I mean, that's a broad term and ambiguous. Isn't it -- isn't it enough for you now to just have that umbrella term described? Don't you want more information? Why haven't we gotten that?
BRAMNICK: Well, if the federal government is doing some research, and I assume it has something to do with national defense, I'm guessing and I'm extrapolating that there was a reason they can't tell us more. So, I will assume the research had something to do with the defense of the country or something in terms of defending against drones. But I'm satisfied at least it's not a bad guy flying around and at least we're seeing what we're seeing, which is a big difference than we heard from the Biden administration.
COATES: Rob, let me turn to you here because the White House said the drones were approved to fly by the FAA for that term, research. Do you buy that? What kind of research are we talking about?
ROB D'AMICO, FORMER COUNTER-DRONE UNIT CHIEF, FBI: No, it's just a different way. All the drones before were approved. You get approval to fly drones or you have authorization because it's G-rated airspace and you can fly them. So, it's saying nothing different. Research is just one reason that you fly a drone. So, it's not saying that -- it's not like it was for like the 383 where FAA was actually researching counter UAS mitigation and detection systems. It wasn't FAA research. You're just saying that's a reason that people fly drones.
So, there's really nothing new here. I was up in New Jersey for my uncle's funeral in January, and I was looking in the sky, seeing nothing outrageous that I'm used to seeing when I do counter drone work. It's planets, it's planes, it's drones that are authorized. I don't know how people are saying that this is a great answer because, for me, it's the exact same answer, worded differently.
And I did -- I did hit the administration last time saying, you need to explain it better. That's kind of what happened here. But there's no difference. I think the new administration came in. There are not enough counter drone detection systems in New Jersey to tell you what they all were because it's just not an area that's populated. Around airports, they have it, and military bases, but not the entire state.
COATES: State senator, what's your response to that?
BRAMNICK: Well, when we first met with the state police, the state police was getting nothing from the federal government, zero. The state police were concerned themselves because a massive drone the size of a vehicle was near a state helicopter. Now, at least they're saying it's not an enemy drone and it has to do with some research. Now, would I like to know exactly what kind of research it is? Sure, I would.
[23:39:57]
But I'm guessing, based on classified briefings with the governor and classified briefings with members of Congress, there is something going on that appears to be research for the federal government.
And once again, we must have some secret research going on. At least there's a response. Do I think it's a complete adequate response and answers all my questions? No, but at least it quells the fears of New Jersey residents who thought there might be something suspicious going on. At least the federal government says, hey, listen, it's okay. We didn't get that originally from the federal government. They say, oh, there's nothing, this is just normal. They're not saying now that it's normal. They're saying there's something going on.
COATES: You know, I got to tell you, I'm not sure that knowing that it is research based on -- and saying that it's not nefarious and not enemies is all that qualitatively different to those who wonder if the response is classified -- is going to be enough. But state senator, if you're satisfied by that at this point in time, and Rob, if you have questions, that just goes to show maybe more explanations are warranted. Whether we'll get them, a very different story.
Thank you both for joining tonight.
BRAMNICK: Thank you.
D'AMICO: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, Jon Stewart tearing into Democrats over their response to Trump's second term.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JON STEWART, COMEDIAN, WRITER: Enough with the he's Hitler, he's a king, stop doing it, that's terrible. What would you (bleep) do?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, the man running to lead the DNC is here in studio to answer that question next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Eight days into the second Trump term and the early reviews of how elected Democrats are handling it, well, they're not so great. Trump critic and former Congressman Adam Kinzinger writing, I have no idea what the Democrats are doing to fight back or even saying. Crickets. And the headlines sum it up like this. Trump leaves Democrats dazed and on the defensive. Democrats grapple with their own message in Trump 2.0. Democrats seek psychologists' advice on Trump's authoritarian behavior. And on that last point, the one about how Democrats keep ringing the authoritarian bell, well, Jon Stewart had some advice on that one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEWART: Look, I really hope that Democrats figure out a way to contain this guy. The question is probably not how dare he, though. The question should be, what are you learning from this? How would you use this power? What's your contract with America? Democrats exist outside of him. Tell people what you would do with the power that Trump is wielding, and then convince us to give that power to you --
(APPLAUSE)
-- as soon as possible. That's the goal. It's enough with the he's Hitler, he's a king, stop doing, that's terrible. What would you (bleep) do?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Lucky for us because we have the perfect person to help answer that very question. Joining me now, Martin O'Malley, contender for DNC chair and, of course, former governor of Maryland and former mayor of Baltimore as well. Well, governor, glad to have you here. I know you're --
MARTIN O'MALLEY, RUNNING FOR DNC CHAIR, FORMER MARYLAND GOVERNOR, FORMER BALTIMORE MAYOR: Thank you.
COATES: -- a fan of Jon Stewart, ironically.
O'MALLEY: I do love Jon Stewart.
COATES: You wanted him to do a debate once at one point in time. But can you answer that question about what Democrats would do? I mean, obviously, pearl clutching ain't going to work.
O'MALLEY: Pearl clutching ain't going to work. What we have to do, as the party that has been committed since the days of FDR to the economic security, health and well-being of every single man woman and child in America, is always bring it back to that reality. In other words, the things that Donald Trump did today on, you know, freezing Medicaid --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
O'MALLEY: -- Meals on Wheels for seniors, really, and other programs, I mean there are governors and mayors all over the country who are scrambling to figure out how to protect the people that Donald Trump is hurting.
COATES: Those are governors and mayors. Obviously, there's to be a federal response to a federal issue as well. Is the last line of defense or the first one the local officials only?
O'MALLEY: We need to -- we need to act like a party. And right now, we don't have a leader, which is why I'm running for chair of the DNC, because, yes, there has to be a legislation strategy. I'm sure Leader Jeffries is working on those things. There has to be a litigation strategy, and we trust that the attorney generals are doing that.
But the Democratic Party needs to be, since we're the last pro- democracy platform left in the United States, we need to be carrying the ball on the communications right back to people, that you might have voted for him thinking you were hitting the refresh button, but the actions he's taking are hurting you and your family and neighbors in your community. That's what we need to bring it back to, what he's doing to you and what we are fighting for you.
COATES: So, what is the message going to be? I mean, obviously, people are looking at what's being done to them. But then they want to know more than just a listening session, as you know, you can imagine.
O'MALLEY: Right.
COATES: What would Democrats actually do? And frankly, a lot of what he has done, we were on notice of. He has said he would do this. So, why has Trump hit the ground running and Democrats seem to be on the sidelines?
O'MALLEY: I -- I have no idea why it is that -- well, let me say this. We need a leader at the DNC --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
O'MALLEY: -- and we do not have a leader at the DNC. I didn't set the schedule for that. That's the way the rules are. But perhaps some underestimated just how quickly Donald Trump would move.
[23:50:00]
There's a lot of damage that can be done. I mean, here's a man who swore to uphold the Constitution, and now he has become a serial violator of the Constitution on the birthright citizenship, on this particular thing, which Angus King pointed out as blatantly unconstitutional.
So, as a party, we're going to have an election this Saturday. It's important that we elect a leader who's ready to go on day one, who can take the fight to Donald Trump, and explain in plain language to people, these are the things he's doing to your family right now. As Democrats, we are fighting against that. Hakeem Jeffries is fighting against it. Democratic attorneys general. And yes, we also need to make better use of our mayors and our governors --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
O'MALLEY: -- because they're credible people. And if they didn't speak to people's economic concerns in plain language, they wouldn't be governors and they wouldn't be mayors. So, we need to start acting like a party. We need to get coordinated in both our communications and our organization. And we cannot do that --
COATES: And in the action, though. I come back to the same point because there's the idea of planning and there's the idea of doing. And yet, there was this interesting conversation that James Carville, who you know is a Democratic strategist, had with Katie Phang on MSNBC, where he talked about maybe the strategy being, well, kind of a Muhammad Ali-esque approach. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: What we have learned as Democrats, just let him punch himself out. Just remember, this is a little bit before your time. But people of my generation, remember Muhammad Ali and his rope-a-dope? He just went -- he just let you just go, the first six or seven rounds, and then you come in and you match up, and then you start launching bombs. And it's hard to sit here and just look at one, you know, Greenland, Canada, canal zone, Delta Smelt, you name it. But you just -- you just got to keep bobbing and weaving, bobbing and weaving, and then in due course, you're going to be able to come in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do you agree with that strategy and will voters be as patient to watch the beating?
O'MALLEY: I don't think we can -- I know James Carville. I like James Carville. I think with all that's at stake and the harm that Donald Trump's decisions are doing right away, real time to families, I don't think we can shirk our responsibility. We need to use each of these as a contrasting opportunity. What he's doing to you and what we're fighting for in order to defend you. That's what this next two years is going to be about.
And as I've made this run for DNC chair, I have led with a proposal to stand up an information war room at the DNC for rapid response, for combating disinformation and misinformation, and for recruiting people into what is now the public square of the internet and social media to fight back against the things that Donald Trump is doing to harm the hardest working and most vulnerable people in our country. That's our mission as a party.
And the biggest change we need to make, Laura, is to return to our true selves. And remember that we're the party that stands for and fights for the economic health and well-being of every family in America. That's the challenge, and that's what we need to get up for and be great again. That America never needed a strong Democratic Party more than she needs us now.
COATES: We'll see if you can undo what will happen. This is only day eight.
O'MALLEY: Yeah.
COATES: Governor Martin O'Malley, we'll see what the voters think about all of it. Thank you so much. O'MALLEY: Thank you.
COATES: Up ahead, a cold case gets new attention. Who murdered child beauty queen, JonBenet Ramsey, nearly three decades ago? Her father speaks out to CNN and says that he wants investigators to give old evidence a second look.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: An unsolved murder from nearly three decades ago is finding itself back in the spotlight. Six-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey was killed in her Colorado home in 1996. Her killing sparked intense media coverage, but no one was ever charged. For years, Ramsey's own parents, they were the prime suspects. Now, her father is speaking out to CNN in an interview with Jean Casarez. Eighty-one- year-old John Ramsey says he is on a mission to convince law enforcement to solve his daughter's murder using a cutting-edge DNA technology, genetic genealogy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN RAMSEY, FATHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: I think it's the only way this case will be solved. The technology is there. We know back in early '97, they sent a number of items to the lab for sampling. A number of them were returned unsampled. We don't know why they weren't tested.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Ramsey is optimistic about working with the current Boulder Police Department, telling CNN after a pivotal meeting Monday that the investigation is moving forward in the hands of competent leadership.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT: You also represent JonBenet, the victim. Victims deserve justice.
RAMSEY: Yes, they do. And the victim's family deserves that. This affects my nine-year-old son at the time, Burke, who's now an adult. He has been accused -- he continues to be accused by the internet crazies that he's the killer. He's got to be the killer. Everybody knows it. And that bothers him. It's not going to change my life at this point, but it will change the life of my kids. That's why I want to get it solved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Be sure to check out CNN.com for Jean's full report. I want to thank you all for watching this evening. "Anderson Cooper 360" starts right now.
[00:00:00] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Tonight on "360," there is breaking news.