Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Dodges on China Calling His Claims of Talks "Fake News"; Trump Tells Putin to Stop After Deadly Attack on Kyiv; Polls Flash Warning Signs for Trump's First 100 Days; Laura Coates Interviews Faiz Siddiqui About Elon Musk; "Sinners" Takes Hollywood by Storm. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired April 24, 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]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: We got to keep it going.
DAN ABRAMS, FOUNDER, MEDIAITE YOU TUBE: I'm just saying, I love my friends who are sober, but it feels like a lot of these celebrities are virtue sick (ph).
PHILLIP: All right.
ARTHUR ALDALA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Keep giving it back, man.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: All right, I wish we could just get over celebrity obsessions altogether. That wasn't fun enough. So, mine is celebrities who do commercials for low cost makeup and hair products like the kind you can buy at the Walmart, at the grocery story, let's say, and you know that's not what they're using.
PHILLIP: All right.
ALDALA: I'm against you. I'll just join Dan. Surprise is overrated.
ABRAMS: Yeah.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: All right, so here is the question tonight: Is China winning the trade war? America's CEO has a warning the U.S. is barreling toward huge price increases, empty shelves at stores, even COVID-level supply chain disruptions. And we can't even get a straight answer on whether the U.S. is even talking with China.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS (voice-over): Can you clarify with whom the U.S. is speaking with China? They're saying it is fake news that trade talks are happening.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, they had a meeting this morning. So --
MASON: Who's they?
TRUMP: I can't tell you. It doesn't matter who they is. We may reveal it later. But they had meetings this morning, and we've been meeting with China. And so, I think you have -- Jeff, as usual, I think you have your reporting wrong. Thank you very much. We'll see you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Did you catch that at the end? That was Reuters correspondent Jeff Mason telling Trump it's China that's saying talks aren't happening. He's here tonight to talk about that particular moment. And he's also right, all he had to do is hear the direct statements from China.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: China's commerce ministry says that there are no ongoing talks with the U.S. over tariffs.
UNKNOWN: A spokesperson for the foreign ministry calling that fake news.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): The commerce ministry also used stronger language, saying if the U.S. really wants to resolve the problem, it should cancel all the unilateral measures on China.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, what's going on? CNN's Jeff Zeleny is reporting that if any talks are happening now, they're low level, nothing at the Cabinet level. One top Wall Street analyst is describing Trump's position this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN IVES, GLOBAL HEAD OF TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, WEDBUSH SECURITIES: It's a game of poker, and they're -- look, he's looking at his cards being like -- so it's not that good of a hand. And the reality is, you got two and a half weeks. Everything we talk about. Two and a half weeks till you have the inventory in terms of all the shortages, the price increases that are coming. It's going to make COVID look like you're eating sundae and with whipped cream relative to what's happening.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: A bad hand with about two and a half weeks until potential chaos hits. Quite the contrast in what the administration was saying, well, just about two and a half weeks ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I think it was a big mistake, this Chinese escalation, because you know, they're playing with a pair of twos. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: It seems the Trump administration is now trying to figure out what move to make. Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent is talking about one potential deal with South Korea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: We will be talking technical terms as early as next week as we reach an agreement on understanding as soon as next week. So South Koreans came early. They came with their A game, and we will see if they follow through on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Obviously, South Korea is not China. But the White House is banking on any potential deal improving Trump's hand, which could help him reel in the bigger fish.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE GASPARINO, FOR BUSINESS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: That's the big kahuna. I mean, that's the one -- you know, the iPhone is manufactured a lot in China. When you do -- if you don't deal with that, you can have some real economic problems here. We can see inflation ratchet up dramatically if we don't need a deal with them, and Xi knows this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And make no mistake, President Xi does know that. Let's look at the headlines. Xi is ratcheting up China's pain threshold for a long fight with Trump. China seeks to leave Trump twisting in the wind. Now, if this is a game of chicken, top experts say that China is in a much better position to actually play the long game.
So now President Trump is waiting for the phone to ring with less than three weeks until Americans start feeling and start seeing the pain. And no guarantee President Xi is actually going to call. And if he doesn't call?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER HILLMAN, FORMER COMMISSIONER, U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION: It just is going to depend on whether President Trump is willing to unilaterally back down on these 145% tariffs on China without a specific deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, David Gura, anchor and correspondent for Bloomberg News, Jeff Mason, White House correspondent for Reuters, and Josh Rogin, lead global security analyst for Washington Post Intelligence and author of "Chaos Under Heaven: Trump, Xi, and the Battle for Twenty-First Century."
[23:05:05]
Wow. How very prescient. Thank you very much for joining us all.
I'll begin with you, Jeff, because Trump insists that the administration is in talks with Chinese officials despite China's denial. We heard your voice earlier, and he didn't seem to make that particular distinction. Why do you think he is suggesting they are if China is saying, uh-uh?
MASON: Well, there's a couple of different ways of looking at it. One is that one side is being untruthful, and we don't know which side that is. The president and the White House are suggesting that it's China that's being untruthful through his refutation today of what they said on the record, by the way, that -- that these talks were not happening.
On the other hand, it could be that China is not wanting to acknowledge talks that are over something that they're not happy about with -- with United States.
So, it's hard to tell, but it was certainly an important question to ask. And he was suggesting that my reporting was wrong when I was just quoting an on the record spokesperson from the Chinese foreign ministry.
I would share some reporting with you that I spoke to other White House officials after that back and forth with the president, and one of them said that there were lower level staff level talks --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MASON: -- this week with China and also a phone call.
COATES: Well, that's not what people were hoping to hear from. Right? I mean, there may have been calls, but they're thinking about the art of the deal when it comes to Trump.
But it doesn't, say, bode well, Josh, that there is a question of who's telling the truth. Who do the American voters believe, China or America, in this point? But you've got reporting on how President Xi is apparently preparing for the long haul here. There is a thought that goes to everyone's mind. Who is more prepared and more suited for that long haul?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST FOR WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE, AUTHOR: Right. There's a -- there's a universe where both of these governments are telling a sort of truth where there are many contacts between the U.S. and Chinese governments all the time because there's thousands of people on both sides who talk to each other, but they're not trade negotiations and they're not -- so the Chinese are telling the truth and the Trump people are telling the truth.
There were two -- a lot of Chinese economic officials in Washington this week for the world bank meetings, and there was a lot of chatter about them meeting with White House staff on the sidelines. That could be what Trump is also referring to.
When it comes to the long haul, it seems pretty clear that the Trump administration doesn't have a long-term strategy. The reason that we know that is because the strategy changes all the time.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ROGIN: And you showed that montage. It laid it out perfectly. From one day to the next, it's a completely different explanation. So, of -- there -- nobody could ever believe that there's a long -- long haul strategy. Now, who is more resilient?
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ROGIN: Who has more cards to play, if we -- if we're forced to use that terrible analogy? It seems pretty clear that the U.S. economy is more dependent on China than the Chinese economy is dependent on the United States.
More than that, the Chinese economy is a totalitarian authoritarian socialist state. So, they can suffer a lot more pain without -- with lot less political consequences. So, politically, they're much more resilient.
Now, we have our own cards to play because we have a bigger economy and because we have these allies. But, as you pointed out, the South Koreans came to town, the Japanese came to town, the Indians came to town, the Vietnamese came to town. They all left empty handed.
And so that part of the strategy where we really have the advantage is also not succeeding yet. Will it succeed in the next two weeks? I think they're hoping that it will, but I'm skeptical, to be honest.
COATES: Well, the skepticism -- the market is also skeptical, it seems. And David, the market is closing higher, though, for a third day since Trump backed down from his threats to fire the Fed chair, Jerome Powell.
But his approach to this trade war, like other things in this context, is kind of a moving target. So, are the markets being too knee jerk optimistic here?
DAVID GURA, ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG NEWS: You know, I think it's -- it's not a healthy thing if a market is sinking by 500 or a thousand points in a day and rising by the same amount the next day. I think you have investors right now who are just trying to see through all of this for some sense of what's going on here, and that's difficult.
And we've heard in recent days from some big investors, including Ken Griffin who runs Citadel, multibillionaire with -- with a huge company, suggesting that America's exceptionalism is on a line -- on the line as a result of what has been happening here.
But to pick up on what Josh was saying just a moment ago and he knows this well, you know, you had a handful of countries come kind of hat in hand to the White House, and I think that what President Trump would like to see happen is for China to do something similar. Of course, that's not going to happen. They're -- they're not going to have that kind of overture. So, this -- this waiting game by the telephone is going to continue here.
And to pick on what Josh was saying, this was a forum in Washington when you could have had some senior officials meeting with one another. We know that the head of the Central Bank of China was -- was in town. That hasn't happened. I think what you see here is just a layer of caution on the Chinese part.
And again, they -- they don't want the image of Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office or the -- the prime minister of -- of South Korea come to the Oval Office trying to -- trying to beg for some sort of deal or agreement here to -- to avoid what happens. None of those countries got a deal as a result of that, and I think that that's the warning sign here.
And there's just a level of caution and care that China is taking here, and you -- you see that in the statements that we've got from all these officials as well.
[23:10:04]
They want a clear sense of what the United States wants. They want a clear sense of what the parameters are going to be for any of these trade negotiations, and we are so far from that. I think they're very reluctant to engage at this point in time, Laura.
COATES: So, Jeff, I mean, what happens if the goods are disappearing from the shelves? I mean, what is going to be the -- the fire proverbially under the president's feet to think change or suffer?
MASON: A couple things. I mean, he has reacted to the markets. So, if markets react to the realities that these shelves become empty, if in fact that happens, if public poll -- I would say markets first. Number two, public polling, and his polling is falling. If that goes in a more precipitous way, that's something that he would likely react to.
I think the other thing that is just worth noting is that the president who likes to have a scapegoat, be it Jerome Powell, be it the press, be it China, he -- he's somebody who can't say that he doesn't own this economy now.
COATES: Hmm.
MASON: The tariffs are driving all of these things. And those are his. Those are not Joe Biden's. And that means it's going to be pretty hard to walk away from it.
COATES: So much more ahead. I want to read your book, especially at this point in time. David, Jeff, thank you. Josh, stand by.
ROGIN: Still available, wherever books are --
(LAUGHTER) COATES: Nice plug, my friend. Well, California is the first state to sue the Trump administration from imposing sweeping tariffs, prompting a dozen states, mostly led by Democrats, to follow in California's footsteps in taking Trump to court. Over what? Well, the ongoing trade war.
With me now, California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Attorney general, thank you for joining us this evening. What do you hope the lawsuit will achieve, and what's the timeline that you are, perhaps, optimistic that it could actually get accomplished?
ROB BONTA, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, we brought -- the governor and I brought a case on behalf of California that seeks to end the unlawful tariffs, the tariffs that the president has no authority to issue and impose. These are authorities that are vested in Congress. Congress has the power to tax tariffs or taxes, unless with a clear delegation of authority to the president, he may not issue tariffs on his own.
So, we're focused on all the tariffs that are imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and we are asking the court to order them unlawful and void and ensure that they cannot be enforced.
We will likely be taking additional steps in the coming weeks to get a preliminary order in the case to end the unlawful tariffs and stay tuned in the coming weeks.
COATES: You know, my ears perked up when you say in the coming weeks given the fact that there is reporting and expectation about the impact being felt within weeks, especially for the American consumer and beyond, let alone small businesses.
The governor says that the state has already lost billions, with a B, billions. And even if you're successful, we know that litigation takes a long time. So, with this loss, too, do you think have a realistic chance of being in the position quickly to suspend these tariffs?
BONTA: Yes. It is the short answer. That's why we brought it. It's exactly what the governor has said and what I've said, that, you know, this -- these tariffs have turned California and American economy, the world global economies, into a tailspin that led to the two worst days in -- of -- of stock market losses in the history of the stock market.
It's going to increase inflation. It's going to raise costs for everyday Americans, who are demanding that cost go down in their lives and after they screamed at the voting booth to the tune of thousands of dollars a year.
And so, yes, litigation generally does take time to get to a final resolution but in all -- nearly all the cases that we've brought, and we brought 14 cases against the Trump administration for his unlawful actions in less than 14 weeks.
We've sought very restraining orders or preliminary injunctions. We will do that again here and get the American people, Californians specifically, which is what our case has brought, on behalf of the relief they need as soon as possible.
COATES: And, of course, you know there has been a number of legal setbacks, even today for the administration, blocking Trump from defending sanctuary cities, blocking him from expanding voter ID requirements or defunding public schools over DEI.
You know, you mentioned the idea of what Congress could do earlier in our conversation, but do you think the courts have been the most successful now in trying to blunt these policies?
BONTA: Absolutely. The -- the courts are where all the action is happening. And it is attorneys general and other organizational plaintiffs that are bringing the cases, the ones that you've discussed and many others, that are getting results.
[23:14:55]
And the -- the cases that we've brought, in nearly all of them, we've gotten temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, where we are prevailing early on in the case, and so are these other cases that brought the organizational plaintiffs.
And so, Trump is losing a lot in court. And I hear sometimes some complaints about these court orders that are stopping the Trump administration from doing what they're setting out to do. But it's very simple. If you don't break the law, if you don't violate the Constitution, then you won't have court orders stopping your unlawful conduct. Follow the law. Comply with the Constitution. Act -- exercise the authority you actually have.
So, yes. In Congress, by the way, the -- the majority, Speaker Johnson, they are letting the Trump administration run roughshod over their authority, trespassing and infringing upon congressional authority with action after action, and that's why we're going to court to stop that violation of the separation of powers and the checks and balances in our U.S. Constitution.
COATES: And yet the body that you speak of doesn't seem to have the same philosophy you do, which would expedite your own endeavor. Attorney General Rob Bonta, thank you so much.
BONTA: Thanks for having me.
COATES: Still ahead, President Trump says it out loud. Russia's major concession would be not taking all of Ukraine. Their mark tonight turning quite a few heads and leading some to question if the deal is now moving even further away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: New tonight, Russia says peace talks with the United States and Ukraine are moving in the right direction. That comes after Trump posted this message to Russian President Vladimir Putin: Vladimir, stop. Adding -- quote -- "Let's get the peace deal done."
Trump making his plea after last night's barrage of missile attacks on Kyiv. A dozen people were killed. It's the deadliest attack on Kyiv in a year.
Privately sources say that Trump has conceded it's harder to get a peace deal than he first thought. After repeatedly praising Putin publicly, he now seems more willing to slowly amp up the pressure on him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I didn't like last night. I wasn't happy with it. And we're in the midst of talking peace and missiles were fired, and I was not happy with it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: CNN Global Affairs analyst Kimberly Dozier joins me, and Josh Rogin is also back with me. Kim, let's talk about this because Zelenskyy says that Russia is launching a new offensive in Eastern Ukraine. Is Putin playing the administration?
KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: It sure feels like it. Yeah, it's the spring. That is when both sides usually launch an offensive if they have the manpower and the weaponry to do it.
COATES: And why?
DOZIER: Because it's thought out, and the heavy tanks, etcetera, are able to move, there's less mud, and this is when Vladimir Putin can also push his offensive in that.
You know, Ukraine is being careful not to offend the Trump administration, especially after the disastrous Oval Office meeting. I spoke to Ukrainian official today who tried to put a brave face on things. Oh, talks in Paris went well, talks in London went well. Yes, some of the rhetoric is bad between the leaders, but we're actually getting things done and we're optimistic.
I'm still not hearing enough out of Trump himself that shows he understands the nature of Putin and Putin's conquest of Ukraine, and that Putin is going to say all the right things but do none of the right things, and Trump is going to end up looking ridiculous.
COATES: The word "concessions" come to mind. Right? That was part of the Oval Office disastrous discussion about who was having concessions and who was not with good cards. And despite Trump's frustration with Putin today, he is claiming that Russia is making concessions. I want you to listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): What concessions has Russia offered up thus far to get to the point where you're closer to peace?
TRUMP: Stopping the war. Stopping -- taking the whole country. Pretty big concession.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What does that tell you about how he views the leverage that Russia has then?
ROGIN: Well, I mean, based on that statement, it seems that the president of the United States has no idea what's really going on the ground in the Russia-Ukraine war because it's obvious that if Putin could have taken Ukraine, he would have taken Ukraine. He tried to take Ukraine. He never stopped trying. So, he can't do it. So, conceding to not do something that he can't do, it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't -- it's logically unsound. So, that's one thing.
The other thing is that, you know, all of the pressure that the administration has been prep -- been applying this whole time has been on the Ukrainians. And none of it has been on the Russians other than a couple of tweets. And the narrative that comes out of the Trump administration's negotiators like Steve Witkoff is are all Russian narratives that are ahistorical and victim blaming. And this is the complete opposite way of how to set up a negotiation that's likely to be successful.
So, we can say that President Trump probably is being genuine when he says he wants to stop the war, but the way that he's doing it is undermining his own goal, and he's finding that out the hard way by fumbling it and actually telegraphing that he's getting bored with it, then he's going to abandon it, which is the exact thing that plays right into Putin's hands.
So, it's just a comedy of errors. It's a diplomatic malpractice in action. And, you know, all of that plays to Putin's advantage because, of course, Putin doesn't want to stop the war.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ROGIN: And now, he has the perfect excuse.
COATES: Yeah.
ROGIN: And it's -- I think it's all pretext for Trump administration pulling a USA from Ukraine, which will, again, not end the war. It will just make the Ukrainians suffer more.
COATES: You have to wonder what our allies think about and adversaries think about that being a concession.
[23:25:01]
You know, also tomorrow, Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, is going to meet with Putin. And Russia's foreign minister told CBS News that his talks were -- quote -- "moving in the right direction." One, what direction is that, Kim, and how do you think this is going to go?
DOZIER: The draft plan that the U.S. has sketched out, according to Ukrainian officials, would have the U.S. legally recognizing Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea. Now, the Ukrainians aren't happy with this. They can't accept it. I had one official say, hey, at least we've got a plan to negotiate from.
The problem is this is Trump -- this is -- this is Putin's wish list that the Americans have laid out. It is Ukraine can't stomach it, European nations can't stomach it. And what about Russia's war crimes? All the ways that Russia has kidnapped Ukrainian children. All of these things that the Trump administration is just glossing over, that Europe and Ukraine won't be able to swallow because it's just a green light to Russia to keep doing it again and again and again.
So, the U.S. might feel like they're close to it because Russia is saying we like this, but the rest of the European or Western World says this is a no go.
COATES: I'm not sure what the concession would be here for Russia to do, as you all articulated. Thank you both so much, Kim and Josh.
Up next, the so-called mandate gets put to the test. A new polling paints a challenging picture of President Trump's first 100 days. Will it make him recalibrate or just dig in further? We'll get it all into it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have some very good polls coming out today, I just heard.
My poll numbers are very high.
We're leading in all the polls.
We're way up with the polls in Iowa and all over the country.
They just came out with a poll. Did you hear? The most popular person in the history of the Republican Party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: President Trump never missing an opportunity to brag about polling numbers. But tonight, a new Fox News poll shows just 33% approve of his handling of tariffs and inflation, while 38% approve his handling of the economy as a whole.
Unhappy with the numbers, the president lashed out at the network posting this: "Rupert Murdoch has told me for years that he is going to get rid of his Fox News, Trump hating, fake pollster, but he has never done so. This pollster has gotten me and MAGA wrong for years." -- unquote.
The weak numbers go beyond that Fox News poll. A new Reuters poll found just 37% approve of Trump's job on the economy. Now that is the lowest in Reuters's polling going back to his first term.
With me now to break it all down, CNN senior fellow commentator Scott Jennings and CNN political commentator Xochitl Hinojoza. Glad to have both of you here.
I'll begin with you, Scott, on this because, you know, that Pew shows Trump's approval rating dropping now to 40%. And going back to that Fox News poll, it finds that just 32% of registered voters think that his policies are helping the economy, while 54% say they're hurting it. So, this is quite consequential knowing that the economy was one of the things that gave wind in the sales to Republicans and Trump.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah, of course. Look, the economy and how people feel about the trajectory of their own personal financial situation, in their own lives, it affects every presidency. I mean, the last president lost -- his party lost the White House largely because people were unhappy about the economy. There's nothing new there.
I think what President Trump is doing, though, is asking for a little bit of patience from the American people as he installs a new way to think about how we operate our economy in the United States and how we operate our trade around the world. And he inherited a mess, and it's not going to be fixed overnight.
So, he's not on the ballot today, and the Republicans also in the Congress have their part to do as well, which is make the tax cuts permanent, codify some of his executive orders into law as it relates to energy and other matters.
So, there's a lot more work to be done. And I think what the White House believes is once the work is completely done and once you give it a chance to work, things are going to start looking up for people and the numbers will improve. I don't sense a lot of panic at the White House over it right now because the president is so confident in his plan and that it will work for the American people.
COATES: Xochitl, you know, intellectually or inside of a classroom, if you are a student trying to think about what this would look like theoretically, you might say you have all the time in the world to figure out the experiment, but the American people don't have that same timeline, and I think there is a sense of panic. How do you see this?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think Scott is right, is that the president is trying -- he wants the American people to give him a little bit of time. But the reality is that you -- the American people usually give a president a little bit of time. First 100 days is normally a honeymoon period. They're getting to know the president. They're getting to know his policies. The difference here --
COATES: They know him already.
HINOJOSA: They know him already. And not only that, but he took a chainsaw to our economy. And everybody -- this was preventable. The reason why we are in this situation with our economy and this uncertainty is because of the tariffs.
[23:35:00]
And to make matters worse, with the big retailers coming into the White House this week and saying, you know what? If you don't do something and do something soon, the shelves will be empty.
And so, there's a lot of reporting now saying that if Republicans continue to go down this path where Trump's approval rating is under 40%, then they're going to have a tough midterm election, and it's likely that Democrats take over.
And that's a big problem for Trump because right now, he is operating with control of all of D.C., including the House and the Senate. And if you have Democrats take over the House or the Senate, which is likely going to be the House, I don't think that Democrats will take the Senate, you will have investigations. There are other things that are happening that are finally holding Donald Trump accountable, and I think he's really worried about that.
COATES: Well, Scott, you know, I want to talk about the -- the courts in addition to what we are seeing with the economy because the Pew research survey finding that 78%, Scott, of Americans say the administration has to follow a court's ruling. Now, by the way, that number jumps to 88% if the Supreme Court issues a ruling. That's clearly an overwhelming majority. You do see, though, the administration attacking judges and the courts. Is that a mistake?
JENNINGS: Well, first of all, the president has said he will follow the Supreme Court's decisions. He has always said that about all of these cases. They may have some differences of opinion about the rendering of certain decisions and how to handle and implement certain decisions, but the president has always said he's going to follow the decisions.
Now, I do think that these individual district court judges that are being selectively shocked by people who oppose the president, trying to issue nationwide injunctions and stop the president from governing, I think that's a real problem.
I mean, it's a constitutional crisis, in my opinion, for these individual district court judges to try to tie up Donald Trump. I mean, it's obvious what they're trying to do, which is to run out the clock until he's no longer in office.
It's sort of what the Democrats did the first time around. They don't want him to be able to govern. Now, the Supreme Court, as you pointed out in the polling, people have a lot of respect for it and so does President Trump.
So, I -- I really do think that if he's allowed to govern, if he's allowed to do the things that he ran on, if he's allowed to continue to, you know, deport illegal aliens, if he's allowed to continue to do the things he told the American people he was going to do, he'll be fine.
But the truth is he's running into a wall of resistance in some of these individual federal district court judges, and I think the Congress honestly needs to step in or the Supreme Court needs to step in because it's not right, what they're doing to this presidency.
COATES: Scott, first of all -- I'm going to get you in here, Xochitl, on this point. But first of all, some of these are Trump appointees, number one. And the idea of you saying him not being --
JENNINGS: I don't care. I don't care who appointed him. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. They're wrong.
COATES: Here's what I do care about. I care why I let you speak and you over-talk me. So, here's the point that I was making. Some are appointed by Trump. And number two, the idea of not having them be able to govern when they're actually talking about assessing the injunctive relief.
Xochitl, these are sometimes temporary measures to then fully evaluate the actual claims that are being made before the court. It doesn't mean that the administration was going to lose, but to put a pin in an injunctive relief.
And to that end, the Supreme Court, at least two justices have said they want to explore the notion of nationwide injunctive relief. But if the president criticizes their authority and undermines their credibility, they might not be followed, which is going to be a death knell for the law in this country.
But on that point, what is your reaction to the idea of the courts shackling Donald Trump when they are assessing the merit of claims brought before them?
HINOJOSA: Listen, we both know the Justice Department very well. There are rulings in -- when you're inside the Justice Department and you have to defend the federal government, there are rulings that sometimes you don't like. And guess what? You have to listen to the court.
At the same time, I think what Donald Trump's problem is that they're issuing executive order, and he's governing by executive action instead of passing laws in Congress.
COATES: Republicans have criticized executive orders in the past.
HINOJOSA: Yes.
COATES: They've done that, too.
HINOJOSA: Yes. Absolutely. But -- and it's -- and if he wants to issue executive orders, that's completely fine. The problem is that they're not being run by the Justice Department. They're actually -- and if they are being run by the Justice Department, they're getting sign off from Pam Bondi, not actually the lawyers who understand what is happening. So, what happens whenever you don't necessarily have the Justice Department sign off on what is in your executive order? It goes up to the courts. It gets challenged.
And so, this is constantly what we're seeing. This is why everything is in the courts, because they're not following the exact process. Stephen Miller cannot write every executive order and, you know, and think that it is kosher moving forward.
COATES: By the way, sometimes even when DOJ signs off, so to speak. It can still be challenged in the court. This is a fundamental issue politically of executive orders being issued by any presence. They can ultimately be overturned.
Scott, Xochitl, not the end of this discussion, but it is for tonight. Thank you both.
[23:39:56]
You know, when the history books look back at these a hundred days, we're not yet at a hundred days, they won't be able to ignore Elon Musk. But now, his full-time work with DOGE is nearing an end. So how did his time in D.C., well, unravel? And what's next for him? The reporter who just penned a brand- new book on Musk is standing by.
And later, an R-rated vampire movie on pace to make a hundred million bucks. How "Sinners" is taking Hollywood by storm.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, this week brought the reckoning some in Washington, frankly, couldn't wait to see. The reckoning of Elon Musk. Boy, has it been a week of tough headlines for the world's richest man.
There's the West Wing clash between him and Scott Bessent that some likened to a WWE match, by the way. The longtime Trump ally, Steve Bannon, took Bessent's side in that spat, by the way, saying Musk is putting his own interests ahead of the country. And Tesla's profits plunged 71%. Now, that led Musk to announce he'll leave DOGE in a month. But still, President Trump stands by Musk's work.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: What he does is good. He's doing medical things that are amazing. And we have to, at some point, let him go and do that. And we expect him to be doing it about this time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, Faiz Siddiqui, technology reporter for "The Washington Post" and author of the brand-new book that's out right now, "Hubris Maximus: The shattering of Elon Musk." Very timely, my friend, indeed. Talk to me what does the -- what does the political future for Elon Musk look like post a DOGE world? FAIZ SIDDIQUI, TECHNOLOGY REPORTER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST, AUTHOR: Hey, thanks for having me first. So, the political future of Musk is right now very uncertain. Of course, in D.C., that governance period looks like it's winding down a bit. Of course, he says he'll still continue to spend a day or two a week working on those related issues. But as you noted, Tesla's profits have plunged, and he's under tremendous pressure to return his attention to Tesla.
Politically, what he may do and what we may see is a little bit more of this involvement in, you know, state level races and also in political donations to some of these candidates who he favors.
COATES: He still carry -- have the same amount of weight and gravitas to the people who would be hoping to donate to campaigns, or has this been problematic for him?
SIDDIQUI: So, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race in which Musk's favorite candidate lost was a bit of a of a rebuke on Elon and his political power. So, obviously, some might be wary now but, you know, money talks. I'm not a political guru, but I know that much that, you know, if he's shifting that much money in a way that can heavily influence races, it's hard to see a situation where a candidate wants to get Elon on their bad side.
COATES: Speaking of money, DOGE has only found, and I hate to use the word "only" with this amount of money, but they only found about $150 billion in savings. Now, "The New York Times" is reporting a nonprofit is estimating that firing DOGE employees -- firing DOGE employees could cost the government $135 billion, which if you do the math, it's late at night, you're talking about not much of a savings overall then.
So, Musk said he'd find a trillion dollars in savings. When you combine those two points, did he overpromise and underdeliver?
SIDDIQUI: That is a Musk hallmark. And, you know, Musk admits sometimes, he can be late, and sometimes, it's not always exactly what was demonstrated in terms of, like, a product demo. But he tends to -- he tends to just say, like, you know, I followed through in the end.
And in this case, it's hard to see how that can happen. A trillion dollars out of the federal budget when they're not touching Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending, like, those are the big buckets, and those ones seem to be ignored.
COATES: You know, your new book explains why people should not be surprised at what Musk has been doing based on the last decade or so. What are people missing?
SIDDIQUI: I think people have been so taken by this idea of, you know, Musk as, which he is, this great innovator and someone who delivered revolutionary products, you know, hero. And that can be true while also acknowledging the reality that the man has shortcomings.
And sometimes, when you build somebody up in this way, those shortcomings will be -- you -- you might be especially sensitive to evidence that, hey, maybe this guy is not all he has been cracked up to be.
But people have been missing that and sort of excusing some of the other behaviors for years because of the myth of Elon.
COATES: Your book is really fascinating. Thank you so much for joining me tonight.
SIDDIQUI: Thank you for having me.
COATES: Faiz Siddiqui. Still ahead tonight, it's the horror movie that has people talking and flocking to the theaters, myself included, sparking buzz and controversy all along the way. So just what is it about "Sinners" that makes it such a unique hit? My next guest has some answers for us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: If you have not seen the movie I'm about to talk about, what are you waiting for? And no, this movie is not a sequel, it's not a remake. it's not a new Marvel or D.C. blockbuster, but it is a Ryan Coogler original, "Sinners."
The movie combines elements of horror, the blues. It tells a story about the Black experience in the Mississippi Delta back in the 1930s. Now, there's gore, there's romance, there's two Michael B. Jordans, and a whole lot of music.
[23:55:01]
Here's a closer look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): There are legends of people with the gift of making music so true. It can conjure spirits from the past and the future. This gift can bring fame and fortune.
UNKNOWN: Will somebody take me?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): But it also can pierce the veil between life and death.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I should note the movie is being distributed by CNN's parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery. And like I said, it comes from Director Ryan Coogler, known for his other hits, "Black Panther," "Creed," to name a few.
Even though Coogler is known for hits, this movie is smashing expectations. It's garnering rave reviews and a number one spot at the box office. With me now to discuss, senior vice president of "The Grio," Natasha Alford. She's also the author of the fabulous book, "American Negra." And I'm so glad that you're here. Natasha, I -- I loved this movie.
NATASHA ALFORD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF THEGRIO, AUTHOR: CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It was so good, Laura.
COATES: It was so -- I -- I would -- I didn't know what to expect.
ALFORD: Yeah.
COATES: Except for I thought it's Coogler, it's Michael B. Jordan, it's Delroy Lindo to name a few. It's going to be great. But it was resonating so much with everyone in that theater. Why?
ALFORD: It was emotional. They were able to tap into the emotion of the audience, and it's because you can't put it in a box.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ALFORD: It's not a traditional horror movie. It's not a traditional drama. The characters play on the truth of history. Right? We learn about people who we didn't necessarily know their histories. I didn't know about the Chinese population in the Mississippi Delta. I didn't know about the Choctaw or the way that they center the history of the Irish and the ways that they were marginalized when they came to the country.
Like, we talk about DEI, but that's literally inclusion in a movie in a way that felt so natural and interesting, but really the centering of the blues. Right? This -- the blues which at one time was considered to be the devil's music, and then you put it up next to gospel. That's what Ryan Coogler said, that this was about the sort of twin siblings of gospel and the blues and the power of the music to touch the soul.
So, I don't want to give too much away about the movie. I also went in not knowing what -- I wanted to be surprised. I just wanted to experience it. And boy, is it an experience.
COATES: It is. And I thought -- I'm not one who's normally drawn to gore or gratuitous violence. I want to relax and escape at the movies. This was my kind of movie, and I didn't realize it would be, especially because of those elements we talk about. But it is not without controversy. I mean, everyone has an opinion --
ALFORD: Yeah.
COATES: -- about what every message means. I, myself, want to go see it again because I feel like the first time I picked up on some of the themes, some of the intersectionality, some of the things that were poignant even for today. But now, I want to go back and see the rest again through a different lens. And that's it. You want to do the same thing.
ALFORD: Oh, yeah. I'm going back to take my dad. So, you know, I went with my husband. We loved it. Taking my dad. Because I think that if you -- you hear about Jim Crow. You hear about the horrors of that time. They make it real in such an emotional way. Right?
COATES: They give boogeyman a face that you know.
ALFORD: It's more than vampires. Right? Like, they're pairing the horrors of Jim Crow with the horrors of these vampires, and it's really symbolic. I also think that they -- they do things that you wouldn't expect, like the lead women, the -- the love interest of Michael B. Jordan, two beautiful women, but you just have to shout out the character Annie. Right? She's just defying in every way.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ALFORD: She practices hoodoo, this African-American, like, spiritual practice, which again is put up against the Christianity part of some of the debates that are playing out right now. But this is how you know Ryan Coogler does his research. He actually brought on consultants when he put this movie together.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ALFORD: So, it's historically accurate, culturally accurate. And then just -- if you haven't seen it, the way that music is centered in this, like, first of all, the talent, you're going to hear singing, you're going to hear music, but you'll also see the connection between music in the past, where we come from in Africa, the music that we listen to today, and then again --
COATES: Yeah.
ALFORD: -- the power of the blues.
COATES: It also talks about in some elements and for people to see passing, the idea of what it means to be identified with one culture or another, love, pain, struggle, and then the proverbial vampire.
I got to ask you, though, there's some controversy because as "Variety" published a piece and they questioned whether the movie can turn a profit, Ben Stiller, he came out and replied to this post writing on X -- quote -- "In what universe is a $60 million opening for an original studio warrant this headline?" Why are they being called out in this odd way?
[00:00:00]
ALFORD: Well, first of all, shout out to Ben Stiller because that's allyship. Allyship is using your clout and your social standing and standing with people. And so, essentially, what he's saying is stop moving the goal post. Right? Like, this is an objective success.
And so, to talk about whether it's going to be profitable when it's only been out for three days at that point, it had only been out a few days, is to try to set the expectation low.
COATES: Hmm. ALFORD: Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan, they have a history of success. That's why studios took a risk on them, and it's paying off.
COATES: This is incredible. Natasha, I'm so glad you came.
ALFORD: Thank you.
COATES: Natasha Alford, everyone. Thank you so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
