Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Intel Breach Scandal Grows as Trump Defends Hegseth; Couple with Three Kids Deported After 35 Years in U.S.; Laura Coates Interviews PA State Senator-Elect James Malone. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 26, 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]

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: -- have a restaurant built off of would be "Back to the Future." So, memorabilia there. I love the show. I love the idea and the concept of thinking about the future, what's to come. As a young person, I'm super excited about the future. A lot of my friends are excited about the future.

There are so many immense opportunities for a lot of us in this country, more so than any other time in the history of this country. That's exciting. Let's think about what's ahead of us, not what's behind us.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: It is a movie that celebrates kissing your mother. I'm just going to say --

SINGLETON: I love my mother.

BERMAN: I'm just going to say, Shermichael, maybe not that much.

SINGLETON: Not that much, though, John.

BERMAN: All right. Everyone, thank you all so much for playing. Really appreciate it. Thank you all for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, President Trump tries to deflect over the Signal-gate scandal and defends his Cabinet secretary who texted the military plans. But will Pete Hegseth stay in his good graces?

Plus, a couple called the U.S. home for 35 years, only to get deported last month. Well, now their kids, born and raised in California, are trying to bring them back.

And a stunner in Pennsylvania after a Democrat flips a seat held by Republicans, get this, for more than a century. Is it a sign of anything to come? We'll talk about it tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, you know, President Trump, he loves to talk up his ability to do the weave. And tonight, he's trying to weave around the biggest scandal to hit his White House this term. Signal-gate, as it's called, is exploding by the hour, really by the minute.

The journalist added to that infamous Signal chat has called the administration's bluff now. And now, the president seems to be brushing the whole thing off on his team.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I wasn't involved with it. I don't -- I wasn't there. But I can tell you, the result is unbelievable.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you still believe nothing classified was shared?

TRUMP: Well, that's what I've heard. I don't know. I'm not sure. You have to ask the various people involved. I really don't know. Mike Waltz, I guess he said he claimed responsibility. I would imagine. I had nothing to do with anyone else. It was Mike. I guess. I don't know. I always thought it was Mike.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Sounds like a lot of I guess and uncertainty compared to yesterday when Trump definitely said the information was unclassified and definitely said he was sure about Mike Waltz.

Now, Trump was not on the group chat. Full stop. You know who was? The defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. He is the one who texted the most sensitive plans about that attack in Yemen. The president was asked if he still supports him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Should Secretary Hegseth consider his position over the Signal --

TRUMP: Hegseth is doing a great job. He had nothing to do with this.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Hegseth. How do you bring Hegseth into it? He had nothing to do with it. Look, look, it's all a witch hunt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He's bringing out one of his favorite attack lines for this scandal. But we now have the evidence showing that Hegseth certainly had something to do with at least the content because the journalist who was in the chat, Jeffrey Goldberg, well, he has now released more texts.

Here's the biggie. Hegseth sent it about two hours before the air strikes began. It shows him saying that he has confirmed the mission is a go for launch. He lays out the timeline for the launches of fighter jets and drones, including the start of a strike window for a target. He even gives the time when he says the first bombs will definitely drop.

Does it sound like war plans to you? Well, Hegseth says it doesn't.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Nobody is texting war plans. I noticed this morning, out came something that doesn't look like war plans. And as a matter of fact, they even changed the title to attack plans because they know it's not war plans. There are no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: War plans, attack plans. I can call this tomayto tomahto. But there's a semantics thing happening. Right? It seems like the administration wants to play that game of semantics.

But there is this. Two defense officials tell CNN the information was classified at the time that Hegseth wrote it. However, the secretary of defense sees it differently. This fiasco is now engulfing the Trump administration, bringing a whole lot of, frankly, bipartisan anger.

So, what's the real source of the controversy I've been asking? I mean, is it about the exposure of highly sensitive military plans or that it happened on a consumer app? Maybe it's the outright carelessness of adding a journalist to the chat. Is it the fact that the administration is trying to make it seem like it's no big deal? Could it be all of the above? Check.

Well, for Democrats, it's definitely that last option. But now, even some Republicans are starting to check their own boxes.

[23:05:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LISA ANN MURKOWSKI (R-AK): I'm worried about everybody and how they have handled this Signal controversy. Does it concern me? Hell, yes.

SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): Whether it is court classified or just highly sensitive, it was too detailed. And whether you call it a war plan or not, it's just too detailed to pretend that wasn't a big deal.

SEN. JERRY MORAN (R-KS): I can't see any rationale for the kind of conversation that took place over Signal for not taking place in a more secure manner than that. I think that's hard to explain.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: It seems so. With me now, Eli Stokols, White House and foreign policy reporter for Politico, Nayyera Haq, former Obama White House senior director and State Department spokesperson, and Rick Tyler, former spokesperson for Senator Ted Cruz's presidential campaign and director of the Advanced School of Politics at Leadership Institute. Thank you all for being here.

Let me begin with you, Rick, on this because Trump is insisting that Hegseth did nothing wrong, doing a great job. To that congressman's point, it is hard to imagine how one could explain, though. He did post some operational details no matter how you categorize it.

RICK TYLER, FORMER SPOKESPERSON FOR SENATOR TED CRUZ'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, DIRECTOR OF ADVANCED SCHOOL OF POLITICS AT LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: Look, I think -- I think there is a lot more to this than -- than whether this was classified or not classified.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TYLER: They'll argue that out, and the courts will have their say on that. I think what has been revealed here is the nature and character of the people who are on that. I mean, consider the conversations. First of all, the president said, I think it's Mike, I think it's Mike, I think it's Mike. And I think that's probably what he is pointing toward.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TYLER: In other words, if there's going to be a fall guy, it's going to be Mike and it's not going to be Pete Hegseth. But Pete Hegseth, who is the secretary of defense, is acting as if he's not in charge of anything. He's acting as if CENTCOM gave him this great information. I'm going to share it, like a child would, to say I have all this information. He's not acting like that.

And I think what's furthermore is it's very interesting to me that the vice president of the United States is the first person to undermine the president's stated public policy. He should have been the guy on the text who should have been rallying everybody behind the president's plan. But instead, he's undermining the president's plan by speaking against the president's plan and arguing against it. I think that's most revealing.

COATES: Yeah.

TYLER: So, these are the people who are in charge of a decision like this. And we can look at the amateur hour of -- you know, I get on text messages. They're not classified. I would know who J.G. is before I would calibrate what I'm going to say on a text message. Nobody is asking who JG is. That's the first thing. But it's incidental to the reporters there. The classification is something somebody else is going to argue out.

COATES: Yeah.

TYLER: It is the conversation that's the most revealing.

COATES: Well, speaking of J.G. or J.D., let me get with J.D. for a second because J.D. Vance also said in that -- according to this, but I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe -- (CROSSTALK)

-- on Europe right now. There's a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike. He talks about other things as well in this. And there's a back and forth about this very moment.

But speaking of the J.G. part of it, I mean, Trump may be defending Hegseth, but he seems to continue to point out Waltz. He almost seems -- is there a suspicion about why this person ended up in this chain? What are you hearing?

ELI STOKOLS, WHITE HOUSE AND FOREIGN POLICY CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO: Yes, there is. There is still -- there is still a lot of people in the White House who are frustrated, especially by the interview that Waltz did yesterday on Fox News. The fact that they've gone out there, they're in damage control mode, can't seem to get a story.

COATES: His interview indicated what?

STOKOLS: Indicating that I'm taking responsibility, but also basically saying, hey, I've never met Jeff Goldberg, I don't know who he is, I don't this loser, calling him a loser, just disparaging him, performing for Trump, that audience of one. And yet today, what comes out? A photograph of Goldberg and, you know, Waltz standing right next to each other at the French Embassy.

So, there just -- there is frustration in the West Wing at -- as much about the damage control effort as the original sin of texting, you know, adding Goldberg to the chat. I mean, to answer your question that you set up the segment with, what matters more?

Well, Trump telling you, this is Mike, this has nothing to do with Hegseth, hours after the text came out showing Hegseth sharing the sensitive information before the attack took place. That just tells you that in this White House, for this president, the thing that matters more, the bigger sin is having Jeff Goldberg in your cell phone, talking to a journalist. It's not being careless with classified information and jeopardizing operational security moments before the attack.

NAYYERA HAQ, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE SENIOR DIRECTOR: Which is ironically where they -- the White House and their damage control is missing the point that most Americans have picked up on. For example, you know, women who are in a military spouse's chat talking about how well, when somebody once said, oh, my husband is coming home next week, the entire battalion had to change their departure and coming -- homecoming plans because that was a violation of operational security. This is at every --

COATES: Because it would put at risk the people who are serving.

[23:10:01]

HAQ: Who are in the field, who are being discussed. Right? Like, at every level of either military or diplomacy or national security. I mean, I remember with my -- I was working in a secure space. I left a piece of paper out in the secure space, in a folder. And it was a violation. And it's terrifying. Right?

When you think you can lose your job and you can lose your credibility because of these minor violations, then you see the people in charge are actually just casually having a chat on a regular phone about issues that are literally life and death, but also with really any disregard for the fact that they are also targets for spying operations.

COATES: That's a good point.

HAQ: And that two of the people in this were overseas. The director of National Intelligence, the envoy for negotiations, was in Russia. I mean, to have devices that are open and available and accessible in adversary countries, and you're having these sensitive chats at the same time --

STOKOLS: (INAUDIBLE) parking lot.

COATES: Or waiting for the message in a (INAUDIBLE). I mean, I keep going back to the reporter who's sitting there in his car. Am I getting the receipt of chicken or not? And you get these little messages that comes in. And you think, is this a joke?

But let me tell you, there's a lot of questions happening. There's spin happening, of course, from the administration. There are some questions, Rick, about, and from Trump, whether Signal itself is defective.

But you've got his allies, to your greater points. Tomi Lahren, for example, calling out the deflections, posting this on x. Admit the F up and move on. You got Dave Portnoy from Barstool Sports also getting a lot of attention for calling them out. So, what gives? Is it better politically just to say, you know what, this was an error, we're going to course correct?

TYLER: Yeah. You can't --

COATES: Or is it too late, though?

TYLER: You can't have Hillary's emails in J.D.'s texts. Right? I mean, there's a parallel there. You can't, on the one hand, say classified information is sacrosanct, and then treat it like it's not. And the -- and the problem is it is dangerous. People will die because of screw ups like this. It is a screw up. Nobody got hurt. The mission was successful. I supported the mission. I'm glad it happened. We'll see if it's going to have long term effect.

COATES: But it can't be all is well that ends well.

TYLER: No. You cannot have operations like this. You cannot -- and think about the conversation. We're -- we're debating over whether we like Europe or a political question on a national security issue. We're going to bomb this country. Yeah, but let's talk about the politics.

COATES: Diplomatically, what is the consequence? You've been in the State Department?

HAQ: Oh, well, I mean, listen, every angle gets discussed with any strike, whether it's geopolitics, whether it's economics, who benefits, who doesn't, who takes risks, but it gets discussed in a closed setting.

And one of the privileges of being at this high level as secretary of defense and national security advisor, if you want to get the crew on the phone, you simply say, hey, somebody in operation, get a secure line together so we can talk. That's it.

COATES: And everything drops.

HAQ: It's that simple.

COATES: Eli, in this point, I mean, you have officials, and I want to play for everyone the spin that's happening right now in the administration. Listen to how they're characterizing this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: There are no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information.

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There were no locations, no sources or methods revealed, and there were certainly no war plans discussed.

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: There were no sources, methods, locations or war plans that were shared.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, looking at an update, the timing, when launches are happening, when strike drones are going to be on target, I mean, tomahawks launched, is this spin going to work?

STOKOLS: Well, at least, they're all on the same page. I mean, from a message --

TYLER: I've never seen that from Republicans.

(LAUGHTER)

STOKOLS: But I think, look, they are splitting hairs, their rhetorical hairs. They're -- they're playing the game of semantics, as you said, trying to hang it on while these weren't war plans per se.

When you talk to people with experience at the Pentagon, they will tell you that the information they put out there had to be classified at the time because this was not an attack that the government wanted to telegraph.

And whether, you know, however specific that information was that was on the Signal chain or not, that's information about an attack that is coming. I think, you know, that's just -- that's just obvious at this point.

TYLER: The lowest ranking sailor on the ship knew it was classified information. They cannot share that kind of information. It puts them in danger.

STOKOLS: You know, but I'll tell you in terms of the, like, the investigation, you hear the president kind of hedging in these comments, like, well, I don't really know, but, you know, who's he -- who's he charged to investigate? Well, the NSC. So, Waltz is investigating how -- how Goldberg got in the chat. And the Pentagon. He has asked, you know, the defense secretary to investigate.

Don't forget, in January, Trump fired all the inspectors general, including at the Pentagon. And so, the person who would normally be investigating this is not there. The people Congress would be saying, hey, please investigate this, is not there.

So, are we going to get any more answers about how this came -- how this came about? Unclear. And it's still unclear whether anybody is really going to take the fall for this or they ride this out and just hope that eventually, people move on to something else.

COATES: Let's ask a member of Congress. Thank you, everyone.

[23:15:00]

Well, Democrats, they are pouncing on the group chat controversy. But what can the party actually do about any of this?

Well, joining me now, Congressman Gregory Meeks, a Democrat from New York. He is the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, I'm glad you're here. Thank you for joining. You're pushing for an investigation, of course, into this group chat. Republicans control the House. Can you get them on board behind an investigation?

REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): I've put in a letter and come in conversation with Chairman Mast to say that we can -- I saw him on CNN say that he's willing to do an investigation.

Let's do a bipartisan letter to the administration and call in all of the parties, especially the head of the -- the secretary of the DOD, Hegseth, so that we can have a full and complete investigation, not only to the utilization of the Signal app yesterday, which was a violation of national security, but it then raises concerns about who else or what else have they done on the Signal app. So, yes.

And I'm looking to do a resolution on the floor that -- hopefully, we'll get on the floor shortly to vote and have the members vote that we need to get all of those questions answered.

COATES: So, I'm hearing that it would be an investigation not only through a hearing, but also figuring out whether this was a one off or whether Signal is being used as a routine measure and to what extent they released information that would fall under that classified umbrella. Is there more to the investigation as well? MEEKS: Yeah. That's what it needs to be. It needs to be a thorough and complete. Not -- as I said, not just for this instance, because this raise concerns about how they've utilized it previously. And it just shows the incompetence, I think, of the secretary of defense.

So, we need a complete and whole and thorough investigation, and it needs to be done by Congress, because one of the things that Donald Trump has done, he has removed the inspector generals and others who would also look into it.

COATES: Hmmm.

MEEKS: -- possibility at the legislative branch to make sure and to watch and to over -- have oversight over the executive branch.

COATES: Yet Speaker Johnson says that hearings aren't necessary. He has called this chat a mistake. But he believes that it's being overblown by the media. President Trump said that the media is up- playing this. Do you agree with either statement?

MEEKS: No. You know, they lie. You know, first, you see them going back and forth. When they thought that they could get away with it, that the actual transcripts would not be released, they tried to say that it was not classified information. Well, some are still lying and trying to cover up and say that there was no classified information. But you know what? I was --

COATES: In fact, congressman, some of your colleagues believe that -- I don't want to cut you off. I just want to just underscore the point you are raising. Some of your own colleagues believe that Cabinet members lie to Congress when they testified yesterday on these very points.

MEEKS: They did. You know, when you listen to what they said yesterday and you listen to what they said today, they lied. There's no question about it. And I think that individuals who are looking and watching and hearing for their own selves, you know, their ears are not telling them a lie. So, they lie after lie after lie and cover up after cover up, which is another reason why we need a thorough investigation.

COATES: So, will there be consequences for those lies?

MEEKS: Well, I think that one of the immediate consequences is that Hegseth should be -- should either resign or be fired. Somebody's head should roll. And since he is the one that led the chat and should have been the one to also look to see who was on the chat, it seems to me, and, you know, I think he was incompetent in the beginning, not the right person to run our Department of Defense, his head should roll. He should be -- he should resign or be fired.

COATES: President Trump seems to be indicating that Hegseth is doing a great job and that he believes that Mike Waltz, who has taken responsibility for having added him to the list, is the person who bears the responsibility. But we have no indication they're going to do anything about it. Can Congress do anything more than reprimand and slap a couple of wrists? MEEKS: Well, clearly, the Congress -- you know, if we were in charge, of course, there's much more that we could do. We can start looking at even, you know, people looking at, as they did, with certain Cabinet secretaries as far as impeachment is concerned, if in fact they were endangering our national security, as what is taking place.

But we need the Republicans in Congress to stand up and meet their oath of office of standing for the country, not for the guy who is president, who wants to be king.

COATES: Congressman Gregory Meeks, thank you.

[23:20:00]

MEEKS: Thank you for having me.

COATES: Well, still ahead, Pentagon officials past and present rattled by the information that was texted in that group chat. So how serious was the info? Retired Major General Randy Manner standing by with his perspective. Plus, do Americans care about Signal-gate? Well, Harry Enten will have the answers for us next. And later, they lived in America for 35 years with no criminal record, only to now be deported. Their story coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: What's security breach? Well, that's the spin we're hearing.

[23:25:00]

But when Congressman Jason Crow grilled director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, on the Hill today, it was hard to ignore what exactly was laid out in those group chat texts, intricate details of a military operation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Just confirmed with CENTCOM, we are a go for mission launch. Does that indicate to you that there is about to be a military operation?

GABBARD: Yes.

CROW: Director Gabbard, have the Houthis indicated an ability to shoot down American aircraft?

GABBARD: Yes.

CROW: They have, in fact, done so. Haven't they?

GABBARD: Yes.

CROW: Including MQ-9 Reapers. Haven't they?

GABBARD: That's correct.

CROW: And that was one of the systems used in the attack recently. That's the subject to this discussion. Is it not?

GABBARD: Correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, retired Major General Randy Manner. I want to pick up exactly there, because there is sensitive data contained in these texts that could potentially endanger troops if there is a heads up.

RANDY MANNER, RETIRED MAJOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: Absolutely. Every single wife, husband, mom, dad should be extremely concerned that their loved ones were put in harm's way by the secretary of defense giving a heads up to the enemy to be -- quite frankly, hey, two hours, we're coming. That means all the air defense capabilities will be on alert. That means they'll be ready for us. That absolutely puts our military at risk.

COATES: And they would argue, I'm sure, that, no, they didn't publish it to an enemy, they put it in a Signal, and they inadvertently accused or included a reporter. That's not the enemy, but it's the potential for it having been accessed as well by anyone.

MANNER: It's clearly important. The military uses secure military communication channels and tools, phones. If they had discussed these bits of, quite frankly, classified bits of information, sensitive bits of information on a classified approved network, that was -- that's what those are created for, but not using an off-the-shelf software called Signal. That's just -- that's just totally inappropriate.

If this had happened to anybody else -- I mean, I was the commanding general -- excuse me, the deputy commanding general of the third army in Kuwait and Iraq responsible for all army forces in the Middle East. I was also the acting director of the Army Operations Center responsible for monitoring Army operations worldwide. If any of my staff had ever released that kind of information, immediately, their security clearance would have been revoked. They would have been removed from their position, pending an investigation and further action.

COATES: I want to go further into the type of information we're talking about because there's some semantics games being played here, war plans, attack plans, sensitive, classified. Can you click -- I want to look at this at this timeline here because Secretary Hegseth in this timeline writes, at 14:15, strike drones on target. This is when the first bombs will definitely drop, pending earlier 'trigger based' targets.

We've heard some Republicans argue that the information wasn't specific enough to jeopardize anything. Your thoughts?

MANNER: Okay. First of all, the concept of whether it is war plans or whatever is irrelevant because war plans are hundreds and hundreds of pages. That was obviously not shared.

Was sensitive information that was absolutely classified shared, that would give the bad guys a heads up to be ready? Well, of course, it was. That is the important difference here. They used the inappropriate channels of communication, and they did absolutely reveal extremely sensitive operational data that put our military at risk.

COATES: They've also revealed that there is a conversation, a dissent happening between Vice President J.D. Vance and the commander-in- chief. That could be exploited as easily as perhaps the operational details.

MANNER: As you can imagine, that is obviously something that someone could exploit. Although my expertise is not in the political side, it's on the military side.

COATES: Let me ask you, though, quickly about the investigation the Pentagon is doing about whether retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, should be demoted. This is interesting given the context we're seeing right now and that no accountability seems to be being leveraged right now for these individuals.

MANNER: That's a perfectly good example of going after his enemies, people that do not speak appropriately of him. Even right now, I'm speaking respectfully of the administration. However, I'm also trying to hold them accountable for putting our military at risk.

With General Milley, do whatever investigations are appropriate. The question is, is it a politically motivated investigation or is it something where there was truly a breach of responsibility in his responsibilities as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

COATES: General, thank you for joining.

MANNER: Thank you so much.

COATES: Very important to hear your expertise.

You know, some people in Trump world think this is all much ado about nothing. A Trump adviser telling Axios, "We don't care what the media says. We could easily handle what would kill any other administration. This will blow over" -- unquote.

And then there are those who argue it doesn't matter because voters don't care.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JESSE WATTERS, FOX NEWS HOST: No one outside of D.C. and in the news business really cares about this story.

[23:30:01]

There's no video. There's no sex. There's no fraud. No one even knows what a Houthi is.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Okay. Well, that got me thinking. Are people paying attention? Well, CNN senior data reporter Harry Enten looked into all this, and he is with me now. Harry, you heard what has been said. How interested, though, are people in Signal-gate?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: You know, this is one of the more interesting stories because I think I actually agreed. I was, like, I don't think people will be that interested, it might be more of an inside the Beltway story, maybe it's a story for a seller.

But take a look at Google searches this week. Look at "The Atlantic" this week compared to last week. Up 900%. I mean, woah, my goodness. How about Signal? Up over a thousand percent on the Google searches. for "The Atlantic," the highest on record. Of course, Google searches go back since 2004. How about for Signal? The highest on record.

So, what we do see is actually there's massive interest in this story. Whether it ends up hurting the administration, we'll have to wait and see. But the interest, at least initially, Laura, it is most certainly there.

COATES: Take me back in time, though, because, you know, there has been a lot of comparisons that have been thrown around with the Hillary email scandal. The former secretary of state herself even, you know, commenting, shall we say, on this with the, are you kidding me? I'm paraphrasing her. But remind us how that played with the public.

ENTEN: Yeah. How'd that play with the public? And how did that play with Republicans? In particular, that Republican base, right? I mean, Republicans on Hillary Clinton's private server back in 2016, get this, just 4% of them, 4% of them said that it was appropriate. I think all four of those percent probably maybe Democrats.

Now, compare to this. Not appropriate. Ninety-three percent. That's basically equal to now Donald Trump's approval rating among Republicans. There was unified sense among Republicans that what Hillary Clinton did back in the mid 2010 was, uh-uh, no, no, a no go.

COATES: Well, she was involved in that. In this Signal chat, it does not include President Trump. Right? But a lot of his Cabinet picks, Harry, they were a part of it. Does this change how people view those picks?

ENTEN: Well, we'll have to wait and see. But what I can tell you is that going into this, even before the Signal scandal, people did not like Trump's Cabinet picks. He did they did not like who he appointed to be in their administration. Disappointed with who with who the administration appointed. Right? The administration appointments.

Look at this. Fifty-two percent, 52% were disappointed in Trump's picks. That is by far the highest on record. It was only 44% last time for Trump. And before that, 16% for Obama, 17% for Bush, and 14% for Clinton.

So, already, we're dealing with a public that already does not -- did not like Trump's picks for his administration. This, I think, can only worsen those levels.

And, of course, one of those picks was Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense. And get this, Pete Hegseth who, of course, is involved in this Signal scandal, is the most unpopular secretary of defense since Donald Rumsfeld back in 2006. And of course, Rumsfeld resigned.

More folks have an unfavorable view by a large margin than a favorable view of Hegseth. And, of course, that was all before this Signal scandal hit the fan. We'll just have to wait and see if Hegseth's unfavorable ratings climb ever higher, as Jackie Wilson once said, Laura.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: I love that song.

ENTEN: Great song.

COATES: Also, "To be Loved."

ENTEN: Yes.

COATES: Harry Enten, thank you so much. Good talking to you.

ENTEN: Nice talking with you.

COATES: Up next, the shocking arrest of a Tufts University student. Mass immigration officials taking her off the streets and into custody. The reason why now setting off major protests. And a California family now living a nightmare after parents who lived here for 35 years were suddenly deported. Their daughter is standing by to share their story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, tonight, the crackdown on college campuses is now well underway. Another student in the United States on a visa has been arrested. This dramatic video shows the moment that mass immigration officials arrested Rumeysa Ozturk outside of Boston last night. Officers surrounded her after she returned home from dinner, handcuffing her, and leading her away. Ozturk is from Turkey and a graduate student at Tufts University.

Tonight, her attorney tells CNN that she is being held in Louisiana at an ICE facility. Her arrest sparking protests on the campus of Tufts. The university is saying they had no prior knowledge about her arrest, but she did write an op-ed in the school newspaper criticizing the university's response to the pro-Palestinian movement. And in a statement, a DHS spokesperson says that Ozturk -- quote -- "engaged in activities in support of Hamas" -- unquote.

But it's not clear what those activities actually were or are. Her arrest comes after at least two other students on international visas were arrested. Both are also accused of supporting Hamas.

But Trump's sweeping deportation operation hitting one snag tonight. A federal appeals court is upholding a temporary block on his ability to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. Many of them were deported to El Salvador, arriving in the cover of night to be held at one of the world's most notorious jails.

[23:40:00]

But the administration is vowing to appeal to the Supreme Court, as expected. And late tonight is announcing that El Salvador has agreed to incarcerate more alleged gang members deported from this country.

Trump's deportations have struck a nerve for many. And this next story in particular has gotten a lot of attention. It's about Gladys and Nelson Gonzalez. The California couple called the United States home for 35 years, fleeing Colombia in 1989 after high crime rates made them fear for their very lives. And since then, they've raised three daughters, all U.S. citizens, and tried repeatedly to retain legal status here in the country.

But in 2000, an immigration court found no legal reason for them to stay. They were issued a voluntary departure order. They remained in the country via an order of supervision. Essentially, they could stay by the check-in once a year and prepare to leave the country. And they did.

Until last month when they appeared for that routine immigration check-in. They were handcuffed, placed into federal custody, moved around to different states for weeks, and deported back to Colombia.

Here with me now, Gladys and Nelson's daughter, Sophie Gonzalez, along with their son-in-law, John Marshall. Stephanie, thank you for being here, both of you. Can you walk us through what happened the day your parents were arrested? I mean, how did you first learn something even happened?

STEPHANIE GONZALEZ, PARENTS DEPORTED AFTER 35 YEARS IN U.S.: Yeah. It was a normal day like any other day. We knew that they had their check-in appointment. And it was February 21. I said bye to them like I always do. And my mom -- I spoke with my mom on the phone around 10:30 a.m., and she let me know that her appointment went great with the officer, that they gave her a year extension. And so, we thought that everything was going to be great.

And then, unfortunately, a couple hours later, we heard different news from my dad, that his officer decided to detain him, revoked my mom's extension, and arrest both of them. We were just in complete shock and heartbreak.

COATES: Did you hear any reason as to why that happened for your father at all?

GONZALEZ: No, nothing at all. They didn't give us any reason. My parents weren't given any reason. The officer simply looked at his file and said that he didn't really have a case and that he was going to be detained, and then called my mom back in and arrested her as well with no explanation.

COATES: Did you have a chance to say goodbye? And how long did it take to actually contact them again?

GONZALEZ: No, we didn't really get to say goodbye. The phone call from my dad was really short. He just told us that we had to go pick up his car that was left in the parking lot. He just told us that he loved us, that he didn't know where he was going, and that he would try and reach out to us as soon as he could. We didn't hear from him all afternoon and all night until the following morning when he was already in a detention center.

COATES: He must have been, as you were, scared.

GONZALEZ: Yeah. We didn't -- we had no idea if they were even safe. The thought of not hearing their voices and not even knowing where they were was awful. We didn't sleep all night. And it wasn't until the next morning that I actually was calling hysterically to different field offices trying to find out where he was. And then, thankfully, he called us that morning to let us know where he was.

COATES: John, this is your family, too. And obviously, you are part of this important support system. Your in-laws, they were here under an order of supervision. They were told to prepare to leave. But did they think something like this could really happen because they've been going for all this time for these now routine check ins?

JOHN MARSHALL, IN-LAWS DEPORTED AFTER 35 YEARS IN U.S.: Right. I don't think so. You know, unfortunately, we just -- we're under the impression that as long as you, you know, stay the course, didn't get in trouble, you know, didn't break any laws that that, you know, these extensions will be granted.

And, yeah, it has been hard. I mean, you know, they have my -- my kids' face on their cellphone screensaver. So, when my wife asked me, you know, are my parents going to be safe? You know, it's really empty feeling and it's really, really difficult.

COATES: Unbelievable. I mean, DH Secretary Kristi Noem, Stephanie, had said if undocumented persons were to self deport, that they may have an opportunity to return legally. Was that a consideration for your parents, to follow that order, to voluntarily deport and try from Colombia?

GONZALEZ: No. Unfortunately, it wasn't. We tried to fight for that. We offered to pay for their plane tickets so that the government didn't have to spend so much money on them. We said we will pay for their plane tickets for them to leave and so we can at least say goodbye. And they told us that would not be possible and did not give us that option at all.

[23:45:00]

And we thought that they could at least leave with some dignity instead of being handcuffed and arrested like criminals the way they were, and they did not give us that option. COATES: Stephanie, John, thank you for sharing what has happened. It's so important for people to really understand, and you've given us that information tonight. I wish your family the best.

GONZALEZ: Thank you.

MARSHALL: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, a dramatic upset in March. And, no, I'm not talking about March Madness, people. This one in a deep red, pro-Trump district in Pennsylvania. A Democrat pulling off a win in a state race that has lifted the Democratic Party's hopes. So, how did he do it? State senator-elect who pulled off the win joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: After weeks of bruising headlines, brutal polling for Democrats, tonight, the party is celebrating a bit of a glimmer of hope. It comes in the form of a shock victory out of Pennsylvania. There, a Democrat has flipped a state Senate seat in an area that hasn't gone blue in, get this, 136 years. James Malone defeating Republican Josh Parsons by just 482 votes. Yes, that's a tight margin, but in a district that Trump won by 15 points.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez framing the win as a start of a comeback, writing in part, this is how it's done. Run everywhere, run down ballot, focus on local elections ASAP from school board to councils to state legislatures. We build from there. Great job, PA.

Well, Democratic state senator-elect from Pennsylvania, James Malone, joins me now. So, senator-elect, thank you for being here. Tell me, what do you think it was about your message in particular and your campaign that secured this victory?

STATE SENATOR-ELECT JAMES MALONE (D-PA): Honestly, it was getting out and talking to every individual. And, you know, we had a lot of neighbors reaching out to each other and listening to everybody. We had a lot --

COATES: What did you send to the top issues then?

MALONE: Yeah, our top issues were, you know, supporting our first responders, supporting education and libraries, and trying to work on the expense of housing. When we're saying workforce housing, we're talking about affordable housing for people that are making from 25,000 a year up to 100,000 a year, and, you know, working on those issues.

COATES: How much did you get a sense that the -- the anger against, say, President Trump or Elon Musk or the way that these first less than a hundred days have operated, are factoring into your own win?

MALONE: The chaos at Washington was a definite component to our win.

COATES: You know, our CNN contributor, David Urban, he cautioned Democrats more broadly about feeling too good about this. He said this was about a bad candidate who ran an even worse campaign. So, obviously, he's not giving full credit to your victory. But do you agree with this sentiment at all?

MALONE: There was some of that. We did have a lot of Republicans who voted for us because of their distaste for the Republican candidate that the state chose to put forward. So, they didn't bother holding back about that. They were very open about that. So --

COATES: Well, that's -- that's interesting to think about, too. I mean, I want to go back a little bit as well about how at the national level, many are going to look at your campaign, you know, your victory here. And Democrats, more broadly, they have been, well, struggling to figure out how to message, how to handle the Trump 2.0 era. There's obviously nuance and new additions here, including Elon Musk. What is your message to Democrats on Capitol Hill?

MALONE: Be transparent, be honest, and work for the people that voted you in. You know, we -- there are so many people that try to, you know, just make sure that they're staying in power, they're staying in seats. And that's not what people want. What people want are the -- the folks to work for them.

And if that means that you have to do something that is unpopular or you have to discuss details that, you know, maybe you're uncomfortable with, do it, because that's the only way you're going to get your voters to feel like they have a need to support you.

COATES: Transparent. Work for the people. Well, that's the recipe that worked for you. We'll see if it's a more broad one as well.

[23:55:00]

James Malone, thank you so much.

MALONE: Thank you.

COATES: And, hey, everyone, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:03]