Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Judge Orders Trump Admin to Preserve Signal Messages; University Student Detained by Masked ICE Agents; Musk Holds Rare Interview with DOGE Billionaires; GOP Panics as Democrat Eyes Major Upset in FL House Race. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired March 27, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: -- at the bottom. You can have it, too. The Owen 2 Chicago Cubs is at the bottom of the list. So, tonight, X, I'm calling out this rivalry. I'm going to make a prediction. The cards are going to best the Cubs in this division.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: I think the idea was to dispense of the rivalry.
JENNINGS: I'm making it worse.
BERMAN: Okay.
JENNINGS: That's my job.
(LAUGHTER)
ROY WOOD, JR., CNN HOST: You can't trip under the Cubs. They lost two games, but they lost some games in Tokyo. Everybody knows what happened overseas. Don't count in America.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: Good point.
BERMAN: Thank you. Mine is, can't we all just get along?
(LAUGHTER)
Do not miss Roy on this weekend's new episode of "Have I Got News for You." It airs Saturday at 9 p.m. right here on CNN.
Thank you all for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:05:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The administration is getting hit with a new order over the Signal-gate scandal: Don't ditch those receipts. A federal judge is telling top officials who were in that Signal group chat to save their messages, including Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio, Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe, and Scott Bessent.
And guess who made the ruling? Judge James Boasberg. Yep, that Judge Boasberg, the one that President Trump won't stop attacking over a bitter deportation battle. And just like with that case, you might say that Judge Boasberg is trying to separate the Signal from the noise here as well. He wants a status report by this coming Monday detailing what steps Trump's team is taking to preserve the messages.
Lawmakers across Washington, they're calling for their own investigations and whether the sensitive military plans in the group chat were classified.
The top Republican and the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee want the acting inspector general of the Defense Department to figure out what exactly went down. But the A.G., Pam Bondi, is all but closing the door on a Department of Justice investigation. She's going after Judge Boasberg instead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE, FORMER FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: He has multiple cases. I guess it's a wild coincidence against Donald Trump and our administration. And now, he has the Signal case. He shouldn't be on any of these cases. He cannot be objective. He has made that crystal clear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Has he? Well, she's also denying any information texted in the chat was classified even though four sources tell CNN that it was.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: It was sensitive information, not classified, and inadvertently released. And what we should be talking about is it was a very successful mission.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, Hegseth could have declassified the information himself, apparently, but he has not said that he did. I'll also leave it to you to try to figure out why sensitive attack plans would be declassified before the operation was even carried out. Things that make you go, hmmm.
One defense official is telling us -- quote -- "It's safe to say that anybody in uniform would be court-martialed for this. My most junior analysts know not to do this."
Now, Bondi is deflecting by pointing the finger at Trump's political opponents.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was at Hillary Clinton's home that she was trying to bleach a bit, talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden's garage that Hunter Biden had access to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: People have talked about that. Here's the thing. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, they were investigated for mishandling classified information. Now, neither were charged.
And to make the point even further, every DOJ under every president going back years has triggered some investigation that didn't look good for the administration in office.
You got the A.G., Merrick Garland, initiating the investigation into Biden. In the first Trump administration, Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein sparked the Mueller investigation after A.G. Jeff Sessions recused himself.
Back in Obama's presidency, A.G. Eric Holder, he ordered a DOJ investigation with the FBI to see whether the IRS broke the law by targeting conservative groups. Under George W. Bush, Deputy A.G. James Comey, familiar name, well, he initiated an investigation of the leak that outed Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA officer.
And then there's Bill Clinton in the infamous Whitewater scandal. Attorney General Janet Reno triggered that investigation, appointing a special prosecutor before independent counsel Ken Starr took over. Remember that?
So, for decades, the DOJ has been independently looking into controversies the sitting president doesn't like, doesn't want. The question is, is that changing now?
Well, joining me now, someone with experience handling sensitive information, Andrew Buckeye. He's a former intelligence officer with the CIA inspector general's office. He's now managing partner at Compass Rose Legal Group. Andrew, good to see you.
[23:10:00]
I'm glad to have you during this conversation because the attorney general, she's not looking into this. Does an incident like this even fall under her purview to investigate?
ANDREW BAKAJ, FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICER AT CIA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, MANAGING PARTNER AT COMPASS ROSE LEGAL GROUP: Well, first, thank you for having me on. Yes, she absolutely has the authority to have a criminal investigation be conducted to determine whether or not classified information or any national defense information was mishandled by anybody on that Signal chat. But I'll go one step further. DOJ would not be and the FBI would not be the only ones who would have jurisdiction to conduct investigation here. You have the IGs and you have other offices that need to look into this from a counterintelligence standpoint
So, for example, when I was at the CIA inspector general's office, I was part of a team investigating General Petraeus the day he resigned for mishandling classified information. There are steps that are taken to determine first what transpired and who may have access -- have had access to this data.
So, what's critical about this is that the federal government needs to conduct a damage assessment to determine not only whether or not this data was mishandled, but who may have had access to it.
So, for example, in conducting investigation like this, the first thing that you would have to do is secure all of the personal cellphones used on this -- on the Signal chat, put them in a Faraday bag, which prevents anybody from going in and killing them, then take them for forensic analysis.
Beyond that, the investigators would need to go ahead and actually get all of the personal devices as well as the government devices of the -- everybody who was part of that Signal chat because if they were conducting themselves in a complete unprofessional manner with classified information or national defense information, what else were they doing on other devices?
By the way, the Signal chat was also called small group, which is an indication to me that there were other conversations that were had that were very sensitive. So, the fact of the matter is that that's a starting point.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
BAKAJ: Then you go even further. When I conducted these investigations, we would go ahead and we would also try and secure the devices and speak with the staff members who were working for the Cabinet level positions or those under investigation.
COATES: This is, obviously, the floor, not the ceiling. The idea of not even beginning to conduct any of what you described. I think that's a little bit jarring because investigations are not always an eye towards criminal indictment. Sometimes, it's investigation as to what exactly happened.
But you mentioned national defense as a term. And I want to bring that up because the Espionage Act of 1917 doesn't actually have a requirement -- I put it on the screen for people -- of it being classified data. It talks about national defense. It lists a whole number of things: writings, codebooks, signals, plans, maps, whatever, information relating to the national defense.
Nothing about classified here, yet we're hearing a lot about whether the information that was shared was classified. How do you see it? BAKAJ: Well, first of all, the way I see it is, first, that information was, in fact, classified. Based upon my knowledge and experience working in the space, the fact that we're talking about upcoming battle plans effectively or attack plans, by definition, would be classified.
And, by the way, Pete Hegseth would not have the ability to just declassify it right up until right before that they're going ahead and beginning the attack. So that doesn't make any logical sense.
Putting that aside, to your point, the Espionage Act is broader. Absolutely. This would qualify as national defense information.
So, there is still criminal exposure, particularly for Pete Hegseth because he's the one having put this information out there. The original SIM may have been creating the Signal chat by the national security advisor, but what's really damning here is what Hegseth did.
COATES: A really interesting point, particularly about Signal because the A.G. Pam Bondi seemed to think that it's a safe vehicle for information like this. Andrew Bakaj, thank you for your insight.
BAKAJ: Thank you.
COATES: With me now, Molly Ball, senior political correspondent for "The Wall Street Journal," T.W. Arrighi, a former communications aide for Lindsey Graham and Mike Pompeo and V.P. of Push Digital Group, and Xochitl Hinojosa, a CNN political commentator and former DOJ director of public affairs under Biden. Good to have all of you here as we are working our way through what? Day three or 3,000 of Signal-gate.
Molly, I'll begin with you here because several defense department officials, they are telling CNN that it appears that Hegseth is preoccupied with optics over substance here. He has been speaking with the armed troops behind him or wanting to be seen with them. Is there an effort to project strength as opposed to what people might perceive as a lapse in judgment or incompetence?
MOLLY BALL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, look, I think any administration that is consumed by a scandal is going to go into damage control mode --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
BALL: -- and try to communicate to the public, you know, their side of things. Yeah, just spin it in the way that is most favorable to them.
[23:14:57]
I think it is also, you know, coincidentally, Hegseth has been on this long trip to the Asia Pacific for the entire time as this has been happening. So, we've only had these sorts of limited public statements from him and the spin that he has put out on social media. I think it's going to be interesting once he's back at the Pentagon and potentially has to answer more questions, although I suppose it's up to him whether he actually does that.
But I think it -- because he is new, because he came in in such a controversial way with that very narrow vote in the Senate, because there were so many questions about his background, about his level of managerial experience, I think all of that compounds this scandal for him because he already came in with something to prove.
He came in needing to prove to the American public, but also to all the people who work in that massive building and for that massive bureaucracy that he knew what he was doing and would be a responsible steward of this important set -- area of our national security.
COATES: Sure.
BALL: And so, I think an episode like this doesn't inspire people's confidence.
COATES: On that point, Xochitl, one of the things that seemed to be a feather in his cap was that he was somebody who has been in the armed services. He is somebody who talked about not just having the elite who never had their feet in the boots actually do it. And so, incident like this where there's a potential jeopardy for those who are actually serving is even more highlighted.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's right. I think that one of the things people talk about, how he wasn't qualified to begin with. But the reality is that if he can't even -- he doesn't understand that this information was classified or that he put people in harm's way, then that's right, he is not qualified. That's actually terrifying that he doesn't understand --
COATES: Do you think he doesn't know that or that he's doing the damage control?
HINOJOSA: I'm -- I'm actually not sure. Either way. I don't know which one is worse. But frankly, to be honest with you, if he's using Signal for any other purpose, for example, if he's using Signal to let's say discuss with his colleagues on how they're going to negotiate with Vladimir Putin, and if for some reason Russia has access to their phone -- again, we have no idea who has access to his phone because they haven't done a counterintelligence information -- then that is something that's putting America at risk, that is something that is not in our best interest.
And so, I think that this is just one snapshot of what happened because there was a reporter on the Signal chat. We don't know what else that is on their phones just because they don't let us do that counterintelligence investigation.
So, I think, honestly, it's a slap in the face to our military, the fact that he doesn't even recognize that he put their lives at risk and instead continues to go on and say, everybody was safe, it was great, nothing to see here.
COATES: What's your response to that, T.W.? Is it that he is indifferent to the possible risk or was it, as he pointed out and A.G. Bondi pointing out as well, the focus is misdirected and misplaced. They believe it should be on the success of the mission, not the discussion surrounding it.
T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUSH DIGITAL GROUP, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM AND MIKE POMPEO: Well, first of all, I do not think that information should be shared on Signal. Period. I think Pete Hegseth has always preached OPSEC. I think he ought to double down and reaffirm that in some of his own actions and the actions of those around him. I do think ---
COATES: Does that include admitting culpability or saying that this was --
ARRIGHI: Well, look, first of all, I think it's refreshing that we have Mike Waltz, Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump, Pam Bondi out there in front talking about this every single day. That is a huge departure than what we saw during the Biden years when we didn't see our secretary of defense for weeks and there were bombs -- there were bombs going.
But be it what it may. I think Pete Hegseth has been clear on the goals that he has for the Department of Defense. I think he has engendered himself with the war fighters in reestablishing that ethos. But make no mistake. It was wrong to do that. That information should not be shared on that platform. There's plenty of lessons to be learned. And I'm glad to see that there is some accountability.
I just hope that -- and I know that Donald Trump is not going to accept this moving forward, that after a great success from our military and our intelligence community, that it is being stepped on by foolish behavior. And I do not think there's going to be some sort of three strike policy.
COATES: Hmmm.
ARRIGHI: I think there has been some very sharp words shared at the White House. Donald Trump will not accept this as a normal way of business. I think it's shape up or ship out.
COATES: Well, speaking of shipping out, a nomination has been pulled in the form of Elise Stefanik. She was set to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
There was always going to be, we knew, a razor-thin majority Republicans were going to enjoy. Well, enjoy is probably the wrong word. They probably loathe the fact that it is this razor-thin majority, but a majority nonetheless.
Was there a miscalculation by Trump in terms of the numbers he had by choosing his Cabinet from such a, well, narrow margin to begin with?
BALL: Yeah. You know, I think, Republican senator Lisa Murkowski said it best today when she was asked about, you know, this consideration of the narrow margin, and she said they're just realizing this now. This has been the case from day one.
[23:19:58]
And in fact, on inauguration day, Donald Trump stood there and mocked the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. He said, gee, I sure am making your life difficult, aren't I? Isn't that hilarious?
But now, it's serious because they have to pass that one big, beautiful bill and it is looking like a very, very daunting task. They've got a limited time to do it with the debt ceiling coming up in a few months.
And they've realized, you know -- and I do think also in light of the special election results in Pennsylvania, this is an administration that is getting a political reality check and this is, frankly, a remarkable admission of weakness on their part, that they cannot be confident that they will be able to retain these seats and hold that narrow majority together.
COATES: In some ways, for the electorate, it's comforting to know that one can't rest on their laurels and expect that you will remain in power because you've been given power. But Stefanik has been trying to spin this by saying this was mutual. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): I have been proud to be a team player. The president knows that. He and I had multiple conversations today. I am here to deliver results on behalf of my constituents and the American people, and that's what I committed to doing today with the president. And I consider him a friend. I'm proud to be a leader in the House in terms of one of his top allies and that will continue to be the case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do you think that it's all roses?
ARRIGHI: Well, look, I think Elise Stefanik would have done a killer job at the U.N. I think she's a patriot. I think this is the right decision and it's not just because of the special election in Pennsylvania. I actually think it has more to do with the fact that we saw how squirrely the Freedom Caucus gets, and they'll thumb their nose at the process.
I think also in Florida's sixth district, Randy Fine is raising, like, no money, and that's a massive issue. I also think that they realize the reality that Kathy Hochul and Hakeem Jeffries are going to do everything they can to keep that seat vacant for as long as possible once Elise Stefanik is gone.
So, I think the political realities are such in this moment, especially with that big, beautiful bill, that we need as many people as possible. Two is razor-thin. If we get both Florida seats, that gets us to four. You know, we have very, very slim margins here. It's just the reality of the situation. It's a patriotic thing to do to go back to the House. We'll have a great U.N. ambassador.
COATES: Real quick, Xochitl.
HINOJOSA: I think Trump is realizing that it's not all rosy here when it comes to the congressional map. I think this is exactly what happened in 2017. In 2017, Democrats have lost everything. And then they started flipping seats little by little. And by the time we won the presidency, we flipped the House and the Senate.
And so, I think that's the path that Democrats are going on. Republicans are realizing it. And Democrats should be thrilled to the fact that Republicans are worried about a 20 plus district.
COATES: We're going to dig more into the issue in Florida and see just how worried Republicans are or how confident Democrats should feel. Thank you, everyone. We actually got Randy Fine's Democratic challenger later in the show, so stick around.
Still ahead, why exactly was a Tufts University student swept off the street by immigration agents? Secretary of State Marco Rubio offers his version of, well, a vague answer, but a very clear warning.
Plus, new reporting on the crackdown across college campuses. The new idea being considered that could prevent some schools from having any foreign students.
And later, you, of course, know Elon Musk. But what about these other guys? For the first time, get to meet the billionaires behind the DOGE effort.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:25:00
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: You come into the United States as a visitor and create a ruckus for us. We don't want it. We don't want it in our country. Go back and do it in your country. But you're not going to do it in our country. It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Noted. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in no uncertain terms taking ownership of the administration's crackdown on foreign students over campus protests. The new effort known as catch and revoke.
Axios reporting the administration is using artificial intelligence to review thousands of student visa holders' social media accounts, sending shockwaves, frankly, across universities.
With me now, senior politics reporter for Axios, Marc Caputo, and immigration attorney Veronica Cardenas. Thank you both for being here. Marc, let me begin with what is being said here. Rubio is owning this policy. Where did he get the idea?
MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: Well, he come up with it after October 7. One of the things that he had stated was anyone who participated in what he said were pro-Hamas demonstrations need to be kicked out of the country, that the executive branch needs to do it, exercise its authority to cancel visas. Obviously, Joe Biden didn't do that. But what a difference an election makes. Now, Marco Rubio as secretary of state, he has that power, and he is zealously exercising it.
COATES: Do we know a lot about the AI parameters here to determine what would constitute cause under his definition?
CAPUTO: No. But it certainly seems, if you review this most recent case of this Turkish student or Turkish woman at Tufts University, it appears, I said appears, I don't have all the information, that she had written an op-ed, which was against U.S.-Israel policy and was critical of Israel.
[23:30:00]
But in having read it, I didn't really see anything in there that was really pro-Hamas or pro-terrorist. It was just essentially a pro- Palestinian, anti-Israel policy.
So, it seems to be a pretty broad net currently, and they haven't explained exactly what their parameters are, and I'm not sure they're going to do that.
COATES: Veronica, I want you to listen to what Secretary Marco Rubio said in explaining why the administration is cracking down on campus antisemitism. He said this just moments ago. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: There's a clear distinction between protesting against a democratic order and protesting in favor of groups that advocate for slaughter and murder of innocent people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What do you make of that distinction, Veronica, if anything?
VERONICA CARDENAS, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: I think that this is just another experiment, and they're trying to see what sticks. And so, they're trying to target specific people, just like in the Alien Enemies Act, stating that everyone that was removed to El Salvador was -- they were -- they were members of (INAUDIBLE).
This is what they're doing now with the students. This is a clear signal that they are going back and picking up on very archaic usages of immigration laws, and they're trying to create new removable or deportable noncitizens.
COATES: Speaking of the practices being used, I am curious, we've seen masked agents who are approaching and detaining these students. Is that common practice of how it's done? You're an immigration attorney.
CARDENAS: Yes. During my time, during my time with ICE, this is common practice. You can see when they approach her, they're not even identifying themselves. They're not telling her the reasons why she's arrested. They're not even giving her Miranda warnings as they're leaving.
And so, this is very problematic, and this is the way that ICE operates because, quite frankly, they've never had to operate in any other way. The immigration laws give them that latitude.
COATES: Even no Miranda?
CARDENAS: They are Mirandized when they go into their -- their stations to be processed. That's when they're supposed to give them their Miranda rights.
COATES: Marc, I want to go over the reporting here because you have some new reporting on how this pro-Hamas purge by the administration could actually block certain institutions from having any foreign students. What have you learned?
CAPUTO: Under current law, if you are a university and you want to have foreign students on a student visa, what you have to do is you apply to the Department of Homeland Security and they certify you to be able to do this, and you can have your students and they go through the whole process.
What is being discussed now is if in these reviews that Rubio is currently doing and his department is also spearheading this endeavor, they find that too many students, too many people are -- quote, unquote -- "pro-Hamas" or the phrase that one person used with me, some people are Hamasniks, if there are too many Hamasniks, they'll just cancel the university entirely from getting any foreign students.
And a Department of Justice official told me, a senior Department of Justice official said that one of the reasons for this is they want to make the universities suffer when it comes to their financial -- their bottom line. That these foreign students pay full freight and it will cost them a lot of money. And so, it'll essentially put the schools on notice and keep them in the line.
COATES: Well, perhaps, Veronica, so much for the idea of the Supreme Court's notion of the marketplace of ideas that universities hold when they're examining First Amendment and speech conduct. I mean, this is a no -- a new zero tolerance policy. It has already sparked a series of lawsuits more broadly. Will the justice system be able to even keep up with what we know about due process given the sheer numbers here?
CARDENAS: I really hope so. And this is going to have to be challenged with the federal courts. The immigration courts just don't have a due process. They can't consider due process arguments. And so, when we're seeing these visas revoked, immigration judges are powerless. That's it. The person is already subject to immigration proceedings, and now they have to show why they can stay. And so, these challenges regarding a person's due process rights, what they have is going to have to be done by the federal courts.
COATES: If they're still in the custody of the United States, especially. Mark Caputo, Veronica Cardenas, thank you both so much.
CAPUTO: Thank you.
CARDENAS: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead tonight, a peek behind the mysterious DOGE curtain. Well, kind of. Elon Musk sitting down with his high-powered DOGE team for their first TV interview. So, what did they reveal? And what was this interview actually about? Kara Swisher is standing by.
And later, a Republican congressional seat suddenly now in play in Florida. Meet the Democrat who now has Trump and Republicans sweating in the Sunshine State.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Is the battle between government of decades and decades of buildup and business, which you guys are, is that like a train hitting each other? I mean, it seems like it's pretty disruptive.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, CEO OF TESLA MOTORS, LEADER OF DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY: Well, this is a revolution. And I think it -- it might be the -- it might be the biggest revolution in government since the original revolution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, Elon Musk tonight describing DOGE's mission, flanked not by the young techies we've heard so much about, but by Silicon Valley executives. It's the first time these DOGE members have done an interview with Musk to explain just what they're doing. Notably absent, the person who's supposed to be running DOGE, the acting DOGE administrator, Amy Gleason.
But set that aside for just a moment. Okay? Because Musk and this team, many of them billionaires, by the way, they tried to explain that they're simply making the government run better. So, what about all the criticism they've received?
[23:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUSK: Usually, when they attack those, they never attack any of the specifics. So, they'll -- they'll say what we're doing is somehow unconstitutional or legal or whatever. We're, like, well, which line of the cost savings do you disagree with? And they can't point to any.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, much of the pushback on DOGE has been about the chaotic nature of the cuts. We'll take this list of essential workers that were fired, whom the government then scrambled to rehire, workers who managed food safety and bird flu response, even the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
I want to bring in Kara Swisher, a CNN contributor and the host of "Pivot" and "On with Kara Swisher." She's also the author of "Burn Book." Also here, Vittoria Elliott, power and platforms reporter for "Wired."
Let me begin with you, Kara, here because look, these aren't the 20 something we're talking about.
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, OPINION CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: Yeah.
COATES: He was with other billionaires. Why bring them? Did it help?
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, OPINION CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: I don't know. His props? They kind of didn't say much. He talked mostly. Right? And it was mostly victimized and saying things that were just -- I don't know, untrue or unspecific. There had been very specific reporting, including in "Wired," which has done excellent reporting about all the cuts and the problems that he's doing, especially the haphazard chainsaw nature of it.
So, it's just -- it was -- to me, it was the world's tiniest violin and then some very disturbing things like that people are going to go after people who just express distaste for Tesla. Like, we're going to -- we're not going after the people who bombed them, we're going to go out to people who talk about bombing them. I mean, not even that, who talk -- who talk -- who just don't like it. That kind of thing. It was -- that to me was more disturbing.
COATES: It is a striking point given especially what has been said over time, even by the president and Pam Bondi. Musk's team, Vittoria, said the mission -- their mission is to streamline the government's workflow. And one of them gave it a kind of Silicon Valley twist. Listen to what was said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE GEBBIA, CO-FOUNDER, AIRBNB: We really believe that the government can have an Apple Store-like experience. Beautifully designed, great user experience, modern systems.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Is that lining up with what you have found Joe's should be doing, Apple Store experience? VITTORIA ELLIOTT, POWER AND PLATFORMS REPORTER, WIRED: No, it's not. And, you know, I think with the term efficiency that they like to use and, obviously, is in the title of DOGE, I think we really need to break down what they mean by that because oftentimes, efficiency, like, when normal people think about it, we think about it like that Apple Store experience. It's going to be smoother, it's going be easier.
But in the world of private equity and finance and the V.C. world that a lot of these people come from, efficiency doesn't mean it's necessarily better for the end user. Efficiency means leaner teams, less resources, and more money kind of being extracted out of the system. And so, I think the first real question we should be asking is, when we're talking about efficiency, what do we mean here?
And then secondarily, there's a reason the government doesn't function like the Apple Store. It's because there's all of these really important laws that prevent data from being shared across agencies. It's actually something that came up a lot in this interview.
And while to a regular person that can seem really inefficient, you know, maybe this agency should be talking to this other agency to make my experience better. Part of the reason they don't do that is to make sure that your privacy is protected.
And so, some of the things that we as end users experience as inefficiency are actually the government protecting us from things like fraud or hacking or other things that are easier to accomplish when all systems are interconnected.
COATES: It's true. I mean, checks and balances perhaps are intentionally slow to allow that to actually happen. Kara, I mean, at one point, Musk talked about how the work is being done day to day and talked to -- and suggested once it's over, well, that'll be it. It'll be over. No report. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: And -- and the process is a report at some point, 100 days?
MUSK: Not really a report. We -- we are cutting the weights and putting real time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Not really a report? Sounds like no report.
SWISHER: No. No. I mean the Apple Store thing just sticks with me. The government isn't an Apple Store. How ridiculous. They were trying to sort of be like the regular people, and these are not regular people. By the way, they're very wealthy. They live in a -- they live in a frictionless environment, and the rest of us don't.
The government is not a store. It's not -- it's nutty. And Elon Musk is not George Washington. I'm sorry to tell him. But, you know, this is the greatest -- it was so Trumpy in that particular thing. You know, I don't even understand what they were saying here. And the panoply of all men sitting there, all rich men sitting there, just -- I think they're quite desperate to try to get better P.R. for this because it's polling so badly.
And to get on certain tropes, like, we're for efficiency. Well, who isn't for better efficiency and better services and things like that? It's a question of how you do it and you do it with intelligence. And in this case, most of these people run their companies like kingdoms.
[23:45:01]
And the government isn't a kingdom, it's a democracy, and they would like to run it like a kingdom. So, it just was the strangest.
And then, of course, they didn't push back on conflicts of interest and all this other stuff. You know, money being made by companies owned by Musk. It just was -- it was just PR, as far as I could tell.
COATES: I mean, the analogies are strained.
SWISHER: Not good deal.
COATES: Well, I was going to say the analogies are strained because democracy is intended to be its own beast. And Vittoria I mean, they also downplayed the scale of the mass layoffs. I mean, Musk, he went on to say almost no one has gotten fired. By the way, that was a direct quote. Almost no one has gotten fired. Am I missing something here? What are they saying that we are not?
ELLIOTT: Well, in fact, a lot of people that they've wanted to lay off through rifts, which are reduction in forces, they haven't been able to because of court orders, because there are, like, actual agreements that these employees have with the government, there's process and procedure if you're going to lay off government employees, that they aren't following.
So, for instance, in the case of USAID, a congressionally established and funded agency that DOGE came in very early and tried to essentially just shut down without any form of congressional approval, there's, right now, you know, orders from courts basically saying you can't just lay off this entire agency's staff.
So, when they say, we haven't laid off all these people, I think they're not providing the full context as to why that hasn't been possible. And it's not because necessarily DOGE has found some better process to do this. It's because a lot of what they've wanted to do is not legal or there are processes they're not following.
And secondarily, a lot of agencies haven't seen those rifts hit them yet. I've talked to people across agencies who have heard that their agencies are in for 30, 40, 50, 60% cuts, and that hasn't come down the pipe yet, but that doesn't mean it's not going to.
COATES: All right. Well, I'll meet you both at the Apple Store. We'll see if we can get some ideas for the government. Kara Swisher, Vittoria Elliott --
SWISHER: Let's get some AirPods.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Thank you both. Appreciate it. You can catch more of Kara and her expertise, by the way, in the CNN Original Series, "Twitter: Breaking the Bird." The final episode airs this Sunday at 10 p.m. and it's only on CNN.
Well, up next, Republicans, they're hearing some footsteps and starting to panic about a Republican congressional seat in Florida. Trump tonight even getting involved personally to help his candidate. The Democratic who is trying to pull off the shock upset joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, Republicans, they seem scared, really scared. So scared that house Republican leadership told the candidate for Tuesday's special election, the one in Florida, that he needs to -- quote -- "get his shit together" -- unquote. That's according to two sources. And to make matters worse, it's being told to Trump's handpicked candidate to fill Mike Waltz's House seat, Randy Fine.
Democrat Josh Weil has outraged state senator Fine by nearly 10 to 1. He has run an aggressive campaign going after DOGE and the cuts Elon Musk could make to Medicaid and Social Security. And in truth, he needs to run an aggressive campaign because he's running in a ruby red district that went for Trump in November by 30 points.
And tonight, President Trump is putting his voice behind state senator Fine, rallying voters to the cause.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (voice-over): He was one of 14 Florida State legislators who endorsed me very early in my campaign for president. That's why Randy will always have a very open door to the Oval Office.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, don't forget, today, Trump withdrew New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik's nomination for U.N. ambassador, fearing Republicans could lose their House majority. After all, they do have the narrowest majority in nearly a century.
Here with me now is the candidate running against Randy Fine to replace Mike Waltz, Democrat Josh Weil. Josh, thank you for joining us this evening. The path to victory given how ruby red this is will not be easy as you can imagine. Mike Waltz, he carried this district, what? With over 66% of the vote back in November. And Trump beat the vice president, Kamala Harris, there by roughly 30 points. Do you think you have what the voters think you'll need to be the victor?
JOSH WEIL, U.S. HOUSE CANDIDATE FOR FLORIDA: Absolutely. And I'm not running against Donald Trump or Mike Waltz. I'm running against Randy Fine. We got two types of people here in district, those who don't like Randy Fine and those who've never heard of him.
Now, I've been running a campaign from public schools, 11 years -- 13 years working in title one schools. You know, in our public schools, we serve every child, every family every day. And that's what people expect from their representative. They don't want to hear that he doesn't care about their issues, that he's running to serve Trump. They want someone who's going to represent them in Congress.
COATES: You know, there was one GOP operative that told CNN, do people wish Randy had taken this seriously from the get-go? Absolutely. But I haven't even thought about him losing. Do you think Republicans are taking your campaign seriously enough?
WEIL: Absolutely. We saw it in the rescind -- rescinding the appointment for Elise Stefanik today. If you were scared that Randy Fine might lose this race, you'd call up Representative Stefanik and you say, hey, we might have to have a talk on Wednesday.
[23:55:00]
But when you know that you're losing this race, you pull the trigger on Thursday before the election.
COATES: I indeed wonder if that was indicative of the fear you described. You're also going to, as you can imagine, need the support of voters who voted for Trump in order for you to win your election. So, what is your message to them tonight?
WEIL: You know, Randy Fine started campaigning about two, three weeks ago. We've been out here in the district for the last four months It's a huge district stretched out over six counties. We've been meeting with voters absolutely everywhere. And we've listened to their stories, and we've heard from them.
They are scared about cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. They're scared about Social Security. They are disgusted and fed up over what has happened with the Veterans Administration. They want someone who will fight to protect these services for them.
And, you know, look, Elon Musk is the one that's taking a wrecking ball to the system. So, when they hear that Elon Musk is spending money to try to get Randy Fine in office, it's a complete turn off. That is not what the people here want. They want someone who will fight for them and their benefits that they've earned.
COATES: I wonder how that guilt by association will translate at the polls. You know, a recent CNN poll found that only 29%, 29% of Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic Party to which, of course, you are a member, a record low in CNN's polling going all the way back to 1992. Given the association negatively with Musk, why do you think Democrats are at this low point?
WEIL: Well, you know, one thing we like to say here is this isn't America, this is Florida. Things are always a little bit different.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: I've heard that a lot.
WEIL: This is a district that has, you know, it's over 25% age 65 and above. People rely on Social Security. They rely on their Medicaid and their Medicare. They voted for economic relief back in November because they couldn't afford to live in Florida anymore.
And what they got are cuts to their fixed income. What they got are downsizing the Social Security Administration by 70%, closing one of the local offices in Homosassa just outside our district. They can't get through on the phones anymore when they call. They're nervous about what's going to happen if the portal crashes and if their checks are going to come through. There is real fear and anxiety here among the voters.
And they want security. That's what they should expect. There should be no risk in that. They spent their entire working lives paying into Social Security so it would be here for them when they retire. And now, there's a risk that it could go away, and they're not going to stand for it.
COATES: Finally, really quickly, there has been a lot of focus on your religion. You are Muslim. How do you respond to the political attacks of you based on your religion?
WEIL: Well, I mean, I was under the impression that we had a First Amendment with freedom of religion here in this country. I know that, you know, some members of the other party aren't a big fan of a couple of those amendments in the Constitution these days.
But, you know, my personal faith, my personal practices are put aside because I'm here to represent every single person in this district and their rights and freedoms. The fact that I have an opponent who blanketly hates large groups of people really confuses me as to how he intends to actually serve them with fidelity in the halls of U.S. Congress.
You don't just serve the people who voted for you, you serve everyone. Every American deserves representation in Congress, and you have to be willing to be there for all of them. I'm willing to. It's a shame he's not.
COATES: Josh Weil, thank you.
WEIL: Thank you.
COATES: You know, for the past two years, CNN anchor Kate Bolduan has been documenting the front lines of the evolving fentanyl crisis. She is seeing it through the eyes of paramedics, dealers, users, and doctors. Here's a preview of her reporting on this week's episode of "The Whole Story."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: You are in withdraw. Okay? What we'd like to do is give you a dose of high-dose buprenorphine to get the withdrawal symptoms away, and it goes in your cheek.
UNKNOWN: The buprenorphine is kept with the rest of our narcotics. We're already precipitating withdrawal with the Narcan, but we don't have a choice. You know, the Narcan is needed to get them resuscitated and breathing again.
UNKNOWN: We want to make your COWS score to go down. Yeah.
UNKNOWN: The treatment for withdrawal is more buprenorphine. We give them two strips. And usually, within four to seven minutes, we start seeing their heart rate decrease. We keep asking them, like, how's your stomach feel?
[00:00:00]
How are your tremors? And we just gradually watch the numbers decrease.
UNKNOWN: I'll put one in each cheek. Okay?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Be sure to tune in to an all new episode of "The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper," airs Sunday at 8 p.m., only on CNN.
Thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
