Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Musk to Get Top-Secret U.S. Plan for Potential China War; Trump Lashed Out at Judges, Demands Justice Roberts to "Fix" It; Trump Signs Order to Dismantle Education Department; London's Heathrow Airport Closed for 24 Hours Due to Fire; Doctor Faces Hate and Threats Over Gold Tesla. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired March 20, 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]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening. I'm Laura Coates. We'll start with the breaking news tonight. Elon Musk's portfolio within the Trump administration may be getting a whole lot bigger. "The New York Times" is citing two sources who say the world's richest man will get a top-secret briefing tomorrow about the U.S. Military's plan for any potential war with China. It is set to happen at the Pentagon, and it would give Musk access on some of the government's most closely-guarded secrets.
So, what would that briefing possibly look like? Well, according to words from the "Times," it will include 20 to 30 slides that lay out how the U.S. would fight such a conflict. It covers the plan beginning with the indications and warnings of a threat from China to various options on what Chinese targets to hit, over what time period, that would be presented to Trump for decisions.
Now, you might be asking, as I did, why would Musk need to know about plans for a potential war with China? Well, it's not totally clear, but one possible reason, if Musk and DOGE are trying to make cuts at the Pentagon, understanding the scope of what the Military can do could be important.
But make no mistake, this is going to raise even bigger questions about the billionaire's conflicts of interest. His companies, including SpaceX, have billions in contracts with the Pentagon. And that's not where it ends. Tesla's deliveries to China account for more than half of the car company's sales.
As for what the Pentagon is publicly saying about all of this, a spokesperson gave this statement to CNN. The Defense Department is excited to welcome Elon Musk to the Pentagon on Friday. He was invited by Secretary Hegseth and is just visiting. He also posted an X, calling the story brazenly and maliciously wrong.
Let's bring in CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger, CNN military analyst and retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton, former chief Pentagon spokesperson and Democratic strategist Chris Meagher, and former senior adviser to the Trump campaign, Bryan Lanza. We got a full house, and we're going need it to analyze all these. I want to begin with you, David. David, answer the question we're all wondering about. Why would Elon Musk need to be briefed on a potential war plan with China?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIOANAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, the most generous explanation of this, Laura, would be that as he makes his way through the Pentagon, which so far has been spared the DOGE knife, they want him to know exactly what they're going to need. So, if they think they're going to need, you know, five aircraft carriers and certain numbers of drones and X number of troops, you wouldn't want to have that cut. But as you point out, there are, of course, business conflicts of interest.
There are also the interesting statements that he has made in recent years doubting whether or not the United States should defend Taiwan, basically saying it should be, you know, a part of China under some kind of an arrangement that he has described in various forms, but basically turning it over.
That is not a position the United States has taken. It's certainly not a position that President Trump has yet taken. And yet much of the plan, the operational plan he's going to be looking at would be how do you defend Taiwan plan.
COATES: I want to talk about what he might be looking at, and I'm following that thread and thinking, so what if Musk says, ah, I don't think that's necessary, we're going to cut that, anyway. Is that what it's going to come down to?
But, Leighton, tell me what kind of detail would this sort of briefing entail and to somebody like Elon Musk, in particular?
CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL: Yeah, so, according to "The New York Times" reporting, it's a 20 to 30 slide briefing that they're planning to give to Musk tomorrow, and that is kind of normal for a high-level briefing on what an operational plan actually contains within it.
[23:04:57]
So, what they'll do is they'll talk about what the basic parameters of the plan are, what the basic goals are, what the most important troop movements would be in order to make that plan real, what kind of weapon systems would be used, would be called for, so, you know, how many fighters, what types of fighters, what types of forces would be used, what commands would be the -- the main commands, would there the Indo-Pacific command in this case, and what are the supporting commands. That kind of stuff would normally be in one of these briefings.
For somebody like Elon Musk, there would be a lot of things that would have to be explained to him just because it's DOD speak and there's a whole different aspect to that as opposed to the business world. But it should be a comprehensive briefing that would give him an idea of how we would fight a war with China. But the one thing they have to keep in mind, every plan, once it makes a contact with the enemy, changes and it really becomes not necessarily irrelevant, but it basically is thrown out the window because then you deal with what actually is happening in that -- in that conflict.
COATES: I mean, what you've described sounds like invaluable information that I'm sure China would like to have their hands on or any organization or any entity that would say, how could a war possibly be waged, but what we're calling the most lethal military in the entire world.
Chris, Musk has no military background, to Cedric's point. As a former Pentagon spokesperson, is it surprising that he would get this high level of briefing?
CHRIS MEAGHER, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: It's shocking, frankly, and unthinkable, really. I can't think of anything like this, certainly in my time at the Pentagon, but I would go as far as to call this unprecedented.
You talked about the conflict of interest at the top. If I was a CEO with business with the Pentagon, who was not Elon Musk, I'd be pissed off. You're giving him access to very, very sensitive information about potential future plans having to do with one of our top adversaries.
COATES: But also, I mean, you might know which weapon systems the Pentagon relies on. That could be invaluable to Elon Musk.
MEAGHER: It's all invaluable to Elon Musk. It's all invaluable to China. And to open the aperture here, only very few people at the Pentagon even have access to this information and these plans. So, to bring in somebody who is not part of the federal government, who has business with the Pentagon, is just really alarming.
COATES: I mean, Bryan, one could take a less cynical view perhaps and suggest, oh, well, you know what? He's simply trying to perform a service and maybe he is just visiting. But if this reporting is accurate, given the conflicts they've just laid out, how can this be reconciled as a good idea for our national security?
BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRUMP-VANCE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Yeah, listen, I would say this. You know, first of all, Elon is a trusted adviser of President Trump, you know, and that matters. And he's a trusted adviser. We've seen him through multiple agencies. He's looking at making the cuts. Obviously, the Pentagon appears to be the last place. And you need to have access to those things.
I think the concern that everybody has about Elon having -- you know, let's remember one thing first. He's an American citizen, he's a patriot, and he took an oath to United States twice, one when he became a citizen, and the second when he became, you know, a special employee of the U.S. government. He's going to protect whatever is important to United States and whatever is important to President Trump.
Him seeking this real time information, whether it matters, I think it does. I mean, we need to know, just like you said, what happens after the first punch is done, and you need to have an analysis where that takes place. And for years, we've seen, you know, the Department of Defense be completely inefficient. For years, we've seen them to be wrong.
So, you know, it's okay to have, you know, review of these things. It's okay to make these cuts. It's okay to have a trusted adviser, a patriot, somebody who has taken an oath, somebody who has actually passed security clearances because Elon Musk has had a past security clearance to get the type of military contracts that he has.
Then more importantly, we're talking about conflict of interest. This is in broad daylight. When we're talking about conflict of issues, usually, we're talking about things that are behind the scenes. There's going to be more scrutiny on Elon because of his involvement with President Trump, because of his contracts, not less. And it's all being done in broad daylight. We're not hiding anything. It is there for the public to see, for the public to review, and for them to analyze who is Elon, what role does he play.
And I think we've seen it by the polling. The voters agree that, at least with President Trump, that he wants -- that he needs Elon to make these cuts.
COATES: But David, to the point, first of all, there's not extraordinary transparency in what DOGE --
SANGER: No.
COATES: -- or what Elon Musk is doing. And, yes, theoretically, the public could see what's happening in plain sight, provided you can actually get into the Pentagon, and you also have access to some of the highly-guarded secrets we've ever had.
Tell me about this. I mean, he has had a lot of access in very sensitive areas, but does this strike you as a different level entirely given the nature of what he would be able to access, patriot or not, that he would access this information?
SANGER: So, to the first point, it is an unusual thing for somebody who's just a senior adviser, not in the line of command in any way, to have access to any of this, as you've discussed.
[23:10:10]
But secondly, I think that the truly strange part of this is that given his own interest in China and in the Pentagon itself, it certainly builds in all kinds of questions here that the Pentagon is not willing to go answer. And, you know, while we were saying before they're being transparent about it, all they said was he was coming for a visit.
COATES: Uh-hmm. SANGER: They never confirmed to my colleagues that he was getting the operational plan for China. And there are a lot of things you can pick up on the Pentagon tour, but the operational plan for war with China is not among them.
So, this is -- this is more than just a visit. And my guess is that Secretary Hegseth thinks it's important to bring him -- to bring Elon Musk on side before he begins his cutting sprees because we've learned that when he begins to cut, it frequently has very little relationship to what the strategic objectives of the organization are.
COATES: I want to mention that the president is weighing in right now on Truth Social to this very idea, and he is saying that the reporting is incorrect in talking about how China will not even be mentioned or discussed on this visit. So, you've heard it from Chris, the commander in chief, who is saying that this is not the case.
Talk to me about the perspective of one justification to perhaps show Elon Musk anything that normally would not go before a senior adviser. Could the military and could the Pentagon be trying to deter cuts and this is one mechanism to do so?
MEAGHER: Yeah. Well, first of all, I would just point out that people at the Pentagon are clearly concerned. That's why it ended up in "The New York Times" in the first place. These are people who are usually averse to talking to the press about stuff like this, and now it's out in the public. So, people have concerns about Elon Musk coming to the building and whatever briefing he's about to receive. To your --
COATES: In fact, we should mention "The Wall Street Journal" is also confirming that, in fact, Elon Musk is the one who requests the information himself as well for this access. Go ahead.
MEAGHER: Well, that's even more interesting to hear. To your -- to your question, I think that's the most favorable interpretation of what we're hearing tonight, that this is taking a broad look at what the Pentagon does each and every day.
They don't want programs that they're going to be investing in that are going to be critical to potentially waging war against our adversaries coming up in the future. Potentially, that would be smart due diligence by the leaders at the Pentagon to make sure that Elon Musk doesn't go in there with the chainsaw and just start chopping things up that we're going need sometime in the future.
COATES: What do you say to Bryan's point about this is somebody who's a patriot, who has had security clearances in the past, right, or has them actively? Is that enough to view this?
LEIGHTON: No, not necessarily because this could very well be a special access-type document. At the very least, it's a top-secret document, and top-secret documents require you to sign, that you have seen them.
COATES: Uh-hmm. LEIGHTON: And if they're in your possession, there's a whole series of rules that applies to this. The vetting process for this administration, frankly, leaves a lot to be desired, from the top on down.
And so, to say that these people are bona fide patriots when we really don't know all about their counterintelligence type relationships or their intelligence relationships with other countries, the fact that Musk has spoken with Putin, he has spoken with Xi, people like that, it's very questionable and it has to be something that we really take a very serious look at before we start revealing war plans in detail to someone like him.
COATES: So, perhaps being a patriot is the floor, not the ceiling. Thanks, everyone.
The courts, well, they keep ruling against him. So tonight, President Trump is taking it to the top, going on a tirade with a message to the chief Supreme Court justice. The John Dean, as we all know him, reacts right after this.
Plus, Trump signing an executive order to dismantle the Education Department today. But can they do that? Not really. I'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, President Trump is getting sent message from the judges that he is warring against. They will not be bullied.
Three federal judges -- count them -- three federal judges making major rulings against the administration today. The first coming from Judge James Boasberg. Now, that's the one involved in that big dust up over the deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members. And he's accusing the DOJ of outright refusing to give him the information he would need to determine if they defied his order to turn those planes around if they were carrying those deportees.
The DOJ was supposed to hand over the flight data today. Remember? But Judge Boasberg says what he got is -- quote -- "woefully insufficient" and was the same general information he already apparently had. And that set off President Trump. Tonight, he's taking yet another swipe at Judge Boasberg, calling him a grandstander looking for publicity.
But Boasberg actually wasn't alone in issuing a scathing ruling against the administration.
[23:20:00]
Enter U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander. She is blocking Elon Musk's DOGE from getting its pause on sensitive Social Security data. She says that DOGE is essentially engaging in a fishing expedition, looking for a needle in the haystack, except there's no indication the needle is even going to be there.
And that gets us to the third ruling against Trump. It involves an academic who is sitting in a detention cell. This as the administration tries to deport him. His name is Dr. Badar Khan Suri. He's a postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown University in the United States on a visa. The Department of Homeland Security says he was actively spreading Hamas propaganda online. But a federal judge is now temporarily blocking the effort to kick him out of the country.
Joining me now, CNN contributor and former Nixon White House counsel John Dean. John, I'm eager to hear your reaction to all of these because President Trump's response tirade, frankly, on Truth Social, railing against the judge who rules against him, his decisions about maybe he thinks usurping his power. What's your reaction?
JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Well, this is not new from Trump. It's standard operating procedure. We know from his first campaign when he was tangling with a judge over Trump University and the fraud that had been accomplished there. So, he has been after judges.
I recently watched the movie "The Apprentice," which is the story of Donald Trump and his tutor in the law, Roy Cohn. I suggest to anybody who wants to have an in-depth look at where Trump gets his views on the law, that movie is a good one.
COATES: Well, he is instructing somebody who is well-versed in the law right now, I'm talking about Chief Justice John Roberts, telling him to fix it. It seems this whole strategy is to get all of this in front of, of course, the judicial nine, the Supreme Court. But how do you think they will respond to the idea of not allowing perhaps a judge to issue even a temporary ruling and get information to figure out how best to rule?
DEAN: Well, I think Trump assumes that it's always going to be a six, three votes in his favor, which may or may not be the case. I think that court is an honest court. There are views that are certainly skewed in favor of Trump, but there are also views that are not, and there are some right in the middle.
So, it's not -- it's anybody's bet up there, and he is certainly doing everything in his power to make it ugly on the road up. And I think that the justices are going to be aware of that. They don't like that kind of behavior. So, he is not -- he was not guaranteed anything in that court, and I hope that court does the right thing because I think most of the rulings that are headed in that direction are not favorable to Trump.
COATES: Yeah. You mentioned six, three. But there has been pressure. And we're seeing MAGA pressure on Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who in the past has ruled --
DEAN: Yes.
COATES: -- along with the three ideologically liberal justices about an issue involving Trump and others. Do you think that that pressure is going to have any impact or influence on the way the Supreme Court might ultimately decide these cases?
DEAN: I think they'll try to be honest in it. But I think they'll look at the atmosphere in which this is happening. The threats to democracy are real. They could be next. This president could try to discredit the totality of the federal judiciary in his attack on the law. So, I think that is a factor that they can't ignore.
COATES: You know, I always think to be careful what you wish for because if you discredit the judiciary, then you get a favorable ruling. Should we discredit that ruling as well? I mean, that's just the risk you run when you're selectively believing in the rule of law.
But, John, the "Times" is also reporting tonight that the administration lawyers believe that the Alien Enemies Act allows federal agents to enter the homes of undocumented immigrants without a warrant. It's unclear if they will try to use the power. But what are the implications of that argument?
DEAN: It's fairly astounding, the argument. I -- this is a law that is largely untested. It has only been invoked three times prior to Trump invoking it back when it was -- first in the 19th century when it was created. During World War I, it was -- it was invoked. And then during World War II, it was used and abused to intern Japanese- Americans.
So, it's not a law -- a statute with a lot of law behind it, and I -- you know, I don't think it's going to give a president unlimited power to just arrest anybody or invade their home.
[23:25:06]
COATES: We will see what a Supreme Court might ultimately find in a case brought before it. John Dean, always a pleasure, my friend. Thanks for joining.
I want to get more on the case where a federal judge is temporarily halting the deportation of a Georgetown academic doctor. Badar Khan Suri is married to a U.S. citizen who's originally from Gaza.
But now, ICE is accusing him of having connections to a -- quote -- "known or suspected terrorist." "Politico" reports that her father used to work in the Hamas-controlled government. But an attorney for Suri says they've only met twice at most.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HASSAN AHMAD, ATTORNEY FOR BADAR KHAN SURI: As far as I'm aware, the only time he has met his father-in-law was when he asked for his daughter's hand in marriage. So, for the administration to say that it's a close tie to a known and suspected terrorist, well, where's the evidence?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter for "Politico" who had the scoop on this story. Josh, I mean, if that's the connection, is that enough?
JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, I mean, it might be -- it might be enough. I mean, this power that the secretary of state has under immigration law, to say that somebody is causing basically foreign policy -- serious foreign policy concerns for the United States, goes all the way back to the 1950s when the current immigration laws were created, and it basically gives the secretary of state very, very broad power.
You know, the fact that his father-in-law -- the father-in-law of this gentleman, who has been detained, had some role. He was a senior political advisor to Ismail Haniyeh, who was killed by the Israelis last year in Iran. It's unclear -- you know, the legal papers say that he's a former advisor, that he's not an advisor anymore. Obviously, Haniyeh is dead, so he wouldn't be an advisor to Haniyeh.
But -- and there does seem to be some indication that the father-in- law may have had some sort of falling out in the last year or two with the Hamas leadership, but he has been quoted in newspaper articles over the last couple decades where he seems to be speaking for Hamas.
Now, of course, that doesn't mean that his son-in-law is an agent of Hamas or representative of Hamas, and I still haven't seen a lot of evidence that the son-in-law was producing a lot of propaganda or was really an activist in the U.S. There are many, many other people who are both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens who've been much more vocal publicly, I think, than this fellow was on the issues in Gaza and Palestine over the last year or two.
COATES: This seems to go back to that subjective -- not often used rule -- that the secretary of state has a lot of subjective power to determine if somebody has -- what's the language? Some serious adverse foreign policy consequences. They could be deportable in these instances. That subjectivity is weighing in here as are the political discussions about which presidents appointed which judges who are ruling on these cases.
A Biden-appointed judge is ruling on that the Trump administration cannot deport this person for now. How will the Trump administration likely respond knowing that they have often honed in on which president appoints who?
GERSTEIN: Well, I think there'd be attacks on this judge like there'd been attacks on every other judge that has ruled against the Trump administration. This is just a temporary ruling to say he can't be deported. Obviously, there's no legal case to pursue if this fellow is deported overseas. But you do see again, as you saw with the Columbia student up in New York who was arrested on this same provision, that the secretary of state uses --
COATES: Yeah.
GERSTEIN: I don't know of him having any connection to overseas organizations. Immediately, within a matter of two days, he has moved down to Louisiana. You know, the Louisiana judge is far more likely, I think almost certain, to be appointed by a Republican president just because of the way we've seen confirmations get very polarized over the last few years. Of course, if you're in the northeast or you're in the Washington area, you're more likely to have judges that have been appointed by Democratic presidents.
And so, is it for convenience and logistical reasons that they're moving people to Louisiana, or is it because they'd like to see these challenges go forth in front of judges down there that are probably far more conservative and perhaps would be far more amenable to the administration's position?
COATES: Mentioning those two cases together, this one and also Mahmoud Khalil, this has given a lot of fodder for the -- for the perception that it's speech that's the issue, not one's connections to anything that would have a foreign adversarial relationship.
Josh, thank you for your reporting. Keep us posted.
Next, President Trump says he's going to dismantle the Education Department. Is he, really? What is at stake and what is actually off the table if he does?
And see this gold Tesla? A doctor thought it would make flashy advertisement for his business until all the hate came his way.
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Today, we take a very historic action that was 45 years in the making. In a few moments, I will sign an executive order to begin eliminating the federal Department of Education once and for all.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:35:00]
COATES: President Trump proclaiming he is ending the Education Department. Can they do that? The short answer is no. Only Congress can shut down a Cabinet-level agency. So, what does this executive order actually do? Well, it's light on details, but it returns authority over education to states and local communities. It also ensures federal funds comply with the law and policy, which includes anti-DEI initiatives.
But here's where things get a little bit tricky. The Education Department does not set standards for curriculum or enrollment or graduation or testing. The local communities control what children learn.
What about programs like Head Start and the School Lunch Program, you ask? Well, those fall under the HHS and the USDA, respectively, not the Education Department. And federal funding accounts for just 10% of all school funding. The rest comes from state and local taxes.
The Education Department does not -- does actually run key programs to help low-income family and children with disabilities. Those provide about $28 billion a year in funding to schools. And it does also run the Pell Grant Program for low-income college students. It distributes about $30 billion a year.
And all of those programs, those aren't going anywhere. How do we know? Trump said so.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: But the department's useful functions and -- such as -- and they're in charge of them. Pell Grants, Title One funding, resources for children with disabilities and special needs will be preserved, fully preserved. They're all going to be.
So, if you look at the Pell Grants, supposed to be a very good program, Title One funding, and resources for children with special disabilities and special needs, they're going to be preserved in full and redistributed to various other agencies and departments that will take very good care of them. It's very important to Linda, I know, and it's very important to all of us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Chris Meagher and Bryan Lanza are back with me. Chris, so Trump says dismantling the department will improve education. But as we outlined already, I mean, states, they have pretty broad authority over education already. So, what is actually changing here?
MEAGHER: It's a great question. There are a lot of outstanding questions after today's announcement.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MEAGHER: You mentioned that the EO was pretty light on details, and so we're going to have to wait and see. He makes it sound like this funding for some of our kids' most -- the most vulnerable kids in our communities is somehow going to continue. But how is it going to continue? Is it going to go to a different department?
Treasury, for example, already said that they're not equipped to handle student loans and Pell Grants and that sort of thing. They don't want to do it. So, where's that going to go? There are a lot of questions about where in the federal government all of this is going to sit, if not in the Education Department.
So, you know, this is just the latest example of Donald Trump and Elon Musk just hacking away at the federal government with no plan, no analysis done on how to get the job done, and just -- and just dismantling government with -- with nothing in place to -- to -- to figure things out.
COATES: Yet on the campaign trail, Bryan, he talked about this. I mean, I keep talking about Trump as he's as advertised in his campaign. He's following along with what he said. This was a big thing about the Education Department. But as I said, it's a position and a department that the Congress has created and established. They can be the ones to truly dismantle it.
You know, Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy says he's going to introduce a bill to do just that. But he wouldn't have the votes. I mean, 14 or even more Democrats having to maybe even join. Doesn't have that.
LANZA: I mean, this is how the process is made. Right? You have legislation that sort of -- you have crisis, which is now being created by this sort of cutting of Department of Education.
By the way, this is a longstanding policy of the Republican Party. Reagan talked about it, Bush talked about it, Trump has talked about it, every candidate who has run for president has talked about dismantling the Department of Education.
Why is that? Because it's old. We felt that the best control of kids and their education is done at the local level. They have said that some of the funds, you know, related to these programs are going to go through other -- through other agencies. No reason to believe they won't. Some of them will be blocked into the states where the states are more -- best equipped.
But I'd say the biggest thing that we've had in modern time with Department of Education is actually No Child Left Behind. They actually did create national standards that a lot of states couldn't meet, that a lot of states have fallen behind. It's important that those standards are created, but they haven't given the standards right to sort of improve themselves. And so, you have this system of No Child Left Behind that has created national standards that's actually falling short of hitting the achieved goals.
So, you have Republicans, you know, Bush, you know, trying to make something of a bad agency. And now, 20 years later, they're showing -- you know, our test scores have gone even lower. So, something needs to be done with Department of Education. We used to have a tier one education system, public school education. The minute Carter introduced the Department of Education, we've seen our scores starting to drop down.
[23:40:01]
There may not be a direct link, but there has to be some link there.
COATES: I hear the -- I hear the word "some" and "something," but is it -- is it -- if it's not known what precisely to do the correct and course correct, is this the action?
MEAGHER: I would just simply say, just because it's a longstanding policy of the Republican Party to get rid of the Department of Education does not mean it's a good job or a good idea.
COATES: Uh-hmm. MEAGHER: And to your -- to your question, I think that, you know, nobody is against getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse. Nobody is against creating a better educational system for our kids. But there's a way to do that, and this is not the way to do that.
COATES: Let's talk about what's going on in the -- on the -- around the nation. You got Senator Bernie Sanders, who is hitting the road with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and they're urging Democrats to fight for the working class to try to counter some of the action taken by the administration. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): This isn't just about Republicans. We need a Democratic Party that fights harder for us, too.
(APPLAUSE)
I want you to look at every level of office around and support brawlers who fight because those are the ones who can actually win against Republicans.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Is that message landing with Democrats on the Hill?
MEAGHER: It's a great question. You didn't see a lot of fight from a lot of Democrats on the Hill last week with the CR.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MEAGHER: I think --
COATES: Schumer is paying for that, in many respects, publicly.
MEAGHER: He's paying for it big time. And I think what we need is not just a message, not just people who are willing to fight, but we need a strategy, and that's what was really missing with the CR fight last week. It was all over the place, and members were all over the place as a result. And so, I think we need to really take a step back, think about a cohesive strategy, how do we go forward?
At the end of the day, we're talking about Elon Musk and Donald Trump dismantling government so that they can give a tax cut to their billionaire friends. That's where we need to keep our focus.
COATES: So, is there -- are the town halls the Republican strategy? Because they don't -- they're not working out for them right now.
LANZA: No. Listen, it's -- town halls are always difficult. You know, you look at the party that's in power, you know, whether it's the Democrats or Republicans. Town halls become something challenging when they're not meeting -- you know, meeting the immediate needs. Right? COATES: They're more than challenging for some, though.
LANZA: No. I mean, I've -- listen -- I've been involved in town halls --
COATES: Well, I have -- I have sound. Let me -- let me -- let me play it for you.
LANZA: -- for 20 years.
COATES: Hold on. I want to play -- this is not the last 20 years. This is just one indication. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HARRIET HAGEMAN (R-WY): Here's the only thing that DOGE has done, which is it's so bizarre to me how obsessed you are with federal government, but -- but here's the thing.
(BOOEING)
Calm down, calm down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Nothing like calming someone down by telling them to calm down. This is not going to happen. But what's your take?
LANZA: I think it's a good thing. I mean, listen, Republicans have to be in the position to defend what President Trump is doing. And the only way you're going to become of strength of doing that is by muscle memory. It's by more and more interacting with the public, making the case, saying, hey, this is what Donald Trump ran on, he's, you know, he has run on doing these things, he is actually achieving these goals.
Where are we today? Gas is 25% lower than it was when he took office. Eggs are 30% lower than when he took office. Inflation is down three, you know, point three -- three-tenths of a point since he took office. Everything he said he was going to do initially, it looks like it's happening and as a direct result of the policies. And the Republican Party needs to go out there and sell that point.
There's going to be noise. There's always noise. So, what about that noise? The Democrats said, so what about the noise when the Tea Party made it? Right? And we're going to have the same noise. And we shouldn't be afraid of that noise. And people are going to have their viral moments, but you're also going to have your viral moments because your argument is common sense.
COATES: Well, here's one quick moment. I know we have to go, but I want to play this. It's because Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was --
MEAGHER: We want more AOC.
COATES: You want more AOC?
MEAGHER: Absolutely.
COATES: Let me give you some AOC.
MEAGHER: Yeah. We want more.
COATES: Hold on. Let me play this clip about her talking about Alina Habba.
MEAGHER: Let America see her more.
COATES: Go ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALINA HABBA, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You were in a bar, AOC.
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, that's the only thing she and I have in common.
UNKNOWN: Calm down. And not to have a drink, to serve one.
OCASIO-CORTEZ: She isn't just talking about me here. She's talking about you. So, imagine what it means for our country that the president's own lawyer cannot even conceive of a working-class person being intelligent simply because of the job that they have.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Is that an effective counterpunch for Democrats to say?
MEAGHER: Look, people across the country are upset with Washington, D.C. Right?
COATES: Yeah.
MEAGHER: And what's going on here. Nobody is against making our government work better for the American people. Nobody is against waste, fraud, and abuse being eliminated from the federal government. It's how it's being done. And it's being done to provide the funding for Republicans, for Donald Trump, and for Elon Musk to provide a tax cut to their billionaire friends.
COATES: There's more ahead, everyone. Chris Meagher, Bryan Lanza, thank you both.
[23:45:01]
Well, he has been called -- he has been called vile names. He has been told to leave the state, to leave the country. All because of what? All because he owns this car. My next guest is a doctor facing all this hate, and he speaks out after this.
Plus, some breaking news out of one of Europe's busiest airports, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: We have breaking news. London's Heathrow Airport announcing it will be shut down for the entire next day. This due to a fire causing -- quote -- "a significant power outage." Posting to X, passengers are advised not to travel to the airport and to contact their airline for further information. We apologize for the inconvenience. One airport official says about 150 people have been evacuated from the airport so far.
Joining me now on the phone from London, CNN's Nada Bashir. Nada, this is very significant. We're getting some new video of a fire at an electrical substation the airport says is causing this significant power outage. What more are you learning?
NADA BASHIR, CNN REPORTER (via telephone): That's right, Laura. This is a huge development, of course, happening at Heathrow Airport. As you mentioned, Europe's busiest. They have said that this is causing a significant power outage. We are expecting the airport to be out of service essentially the entirety of Friday until this is resolved, potentially even longer.
And what we've heard so far from London Fire Brigade is that they believe a transformer within an electrical substation in Hayes, an area in West London just around the airport, was alive. They say they were called to the incident at around 11:30 p.m. local time. They said that crews have been on the scene throughout the night. Of course, this has triggered a significant response from the fire brigade. Ten fire engines are at the scene. Around 70 firefighters are also said to be responding to the blaze.
And, of course, important to know that Hayes is also a residential area. At least 29 people were led to safety from neighboring properties, according to the fire brigade. And what they've done now is established a 200-meter cordon around the area. So, as you mentioned, evacuating 150 people.
Now, at this stage, the cause of the fire is not yet known. Fire officials are still investigating. But, of course, this is very much an ongoing situation. Firefighters are still responding to the blaze. They are expected to remain at the scene throughout Friday, at least. And, as you mentioned, Heathrow Airport is warning now of significant disruption over the coming days. Passengers advised not to travel to the airport. So, you can imagine this is going to lead to quite a lot of chaos for the airport over the coming days.
COATES: Unbelievable chaos. I can't imagine what the disruption would be in the flights alone and this fire blazing. Very significant. Nada Bashir, thank you for your reporting.
Another setback for Tesla, really. The company now sending its eighth recall of its Cybertruck. Forty-six thousand vehicles are not impacted over concerns that an exterior panel could detach while driving. And the hits keep coming, like the hit to the company's stock and the hit to the company's sales. And then there are the actual physical hits, vandalism and arson of Tesla cars nationwide, protests outside of dealerships.
The administration is doing what they can to boost Tesla's owner, as you know, Elon Musk. The commerce secretary urging people to buy Tesla stock on Fox. The attorney general warning attacks on Teslas could be domestic terrorism. And who would forget Trump's Tesla sales pitch outside the White House?
But what about the Tesla owners facing the vitriol even on the roads? Massachusetts Republican doctor, Kumait Jaroje, bought this bright gold Cybertruck to advertise his med spa business, only to see it vandalized.
Joining me now is Dr. Kumait Jaroje right now. Doctor Jaroje, thank you for joining. Your Cybertruck was vandalized with an offensive sticker placed on it that read, "Nazis F-off." What went through your mind when you saw that?
KUMAIT JAROJE, DOCTOR, CYBERTRUCK OWNER: Thank you so much for having me today. You know, basically, that was pretty concerning. The first time my wife found about the stickers, she was very concerned, scared, anxious. And she was, like, must be somebody watching us, he knows where we park. So, she was pretty scared. We had -- I had to, you know, call around, try to find out what happened. And, you know, it was -- it was pretty concerning, that moment. I can tell it.
COATES: Of course, it must have been. I mean, just for you -- just to see that and the language itself. And this truck actually advertises your business. You've now also been getting threats online. You've even received, well, this threatening voice message, as I understand it, as well. What -- let's play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Why don't you take your cockroach wife and your (bleep) up brain-dead kids and take you (bleep) gold Tesla (INAUDIBLE), climb in and drive down to Florida or drive to Tennessee? Just get the (bleep) out of any blue state, you disgusting trash bag.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:55:06]
COATES: This is all because of the car you drive.
JAROJE: Yeah, exactly. So, like -- let me just summarize it really quick. Back in 2019, you know, I invested all my life saving into my passion, cosmetic medicine, wanted to make everything like, you know, awake lipo, hair transplant, all that stuff. So, I tried to deliver great results, passionate about that, the business, you know. I spent all my time there, fixing everything myself. And then time came to take the delivery of the Cybertruck, which I ordered, like, around 2019. You know, unconventional, bold statement to the Cybertruck, futuristic-looking. That's what I focus in my -- in my -- in my clinic, you know. All the most advanced technologies, the machines. So, I bought the Cybertruck. I put my logo on the Cybertruck.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
JAROJE: I was driving it around as a billboard. I never thought about, like, gold as a statement to support, like, Republicans or Democrats or anything or a Cybertruck as Elon.
In April, you know, when I got the Cybertruck, I got, like, different mixed playful reactions. Somebody called it the dark urine dumpster, you know. But I took it fine. I mean, just I laughed about it.
But after the inauguration, things turned to be very aggressive. People, metal fingers, cutting me off, you know, while kids in the car. And then I found the sticker, so I got really anxious, yeah. It was pretty concerning for the whole family. My wife freaked out. I filed a police report because I was very concerned about my safety and the kids' safety, basically.
And then I called Tesla. They said they won't take the car back. I -- honestly, I felt betrayed, you know. I mean, they made me sign a contract not to sell the vehicle for a year, and then all of a sudden, oh, you're free out of that contract, and we're not taking that vehicle.
Tried to sell it to a few dealerships. They -- actually, they're not interested, you know. They'll give you a very low price, like, take over a $50,000 hit in a car that I had for less than a year.
So, I parked the car away, and then I started receiving all this flood of hate comments, death threats, you know. People tell me, like, well, somebody will stop in the street and shoot you.
COATES: My goodness.
JAROJE: That was pretty terrifying. And -- but I'm going to tell you what happened. All of a sudden, I start seeing, like, a huge wave of support from American people all over the -- all over the streets, you know.
COATES: Wow.
JAROJE: At my business. Republicans, Democrats, Independents. These people are cheering me up, like, telling me to stand up, to stand my ground and, you know, sending blessings, phone calls --
COATES: Wow.
JAROJE: -- my business. I -- honestly, I felt like this is the real American dream. It was just a game (ph). People telling me, yes, that's your personal choice for it. And as I -- as I said before, I never had this as a symbol for Musk. I didn't mean to support Musk or Trump or anything for that. It was just for the business. You know what I'm saying?
COATES: Yeah.
JAROJE: But now, it became, like, for my personal choice --
COATES: Sure.
JAROJE: My personal freedom, you know?
COATES: Dr. Kumait Jaroje, I'm so glad that you shared your story. I think people really need to understand the impact that it's having on real people. Thank you for sharing.
JAROJE: Yeah. Thank you.
COATES: Thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
