Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Offers Up New Timeline on Iran Strike Decision; Court Rules Trump Can Keep Control of California's National Guard; Laura Coates Interviews Maryland Governor Wes Moore; Tension Building Between Trump and Gabbard. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 19, 2025 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Breaking tonight, President Trump buys himself some more time on the decision of whether to strike or not. Will Israel follow his timeline?

Plus, reaction tonight from combat veteran, Maryland Governor Wes Moore. Does he think the U.S. should get involved? I'll ask him.

Also breaking tonight, a major win for the president as a court rules he can keep control of California's National Guard.

Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

We start with the breaking news tonight. President Trump is giving Iran the two-week treatment. Days of uncertainty over whether he would strike Iran is now being met with, well, more uncertainty.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I have a message directly from the president, and I quote. "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, to be clear, whatever Trump decides will have enormous consequences. It may very well be a choice that defines his presidency. He says that he wants to take away Iran's ability to make a nuclear bomb. Now, the big unknown is whether the military involvement or diplomacy is the best way to do just that. Both come with major risks.

U.S. Military intervention could drag America into a drawn-out conflict. Iran is already threatening to retaliate. And there is no guarantee that dropping America's bunker-busting bombs would completely wipe out Iran's nuclear program. In fact, one report says they may be why Trump is on defense. I'll talk with the journalist who broke that story in just a moment. But Trump waiting for negotiations to materialize is also a bit of a gamble. A lot can happen in two weeks, let alone days. For one, Trump claimed just yesterday that Iran was weeks away from a bomb.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I've been saying for 20 years, maybe longer, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I've been saying it for a long time. And I think they were a few weeks away from having one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And for that matter, Israel and Iran may be on a different timeline than President Trump. An Israeli intelligence official said this to CNN about his two-week deadline. Quote -- "This is not helping."

Now, the two countries have been trading fire for seven days already. And the damage, extensive. Within the past 24 hours, an Israeli hospital was damaged in Iranian strikes. And CNN is now on the ground in Tehran. Some residential buildings there have partially collapsed, others completely destroyed. The fighting, it could escalate at any moment.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is vowing to hit all of Iran's nuclear sites, but he's not revealing when it could happen. He's also not ruling out targeting Iran's supreme leader after Israel's defense minister said the ayatollah can no longer continue to exist.

So, 14 days is a long time in the fog of war. But it's also worth asking if two weeks really means two weeks because Trump has used that two-week card plenty of times before to take the war in Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you trust President Putin?

TRUMP: I'll let you know in about two weeks.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): In your mind, is Ukraine doing enough to get this -- to get this --

TRUMP: I'd rather tell you in about two weeks from now because I can't say yes or no.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you still believe that Putin actually wants to end the war?

TRUMP: I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The question is, will these two weeks be different? I want to bring in White House correspondent for "The Guardian," Hugo Lowell, and CNN military analyst, retired Air Force colonel, Cedric Leighton.

Hugo, let me start with you. How did this two-week deadline even come about? Was it a -- a random number or does it have some attachment?

HUGO LOWELL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE GUARDIAN: It's not exactly clear, I think, why this two-week period came up, you know. It is true that Trump has said multiple times that two weeks --

COATES: Yeah.

LOWELL: You know, this will happen, that will happen. We also had it with the Trump card. It's not just --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LOWELL: -- on military engagements, it's on a whole bunch of things. But I think it gets to the broader point, which we have been hearing from a lot of his advisers, is that his preference with Iran is to get a deal.

[23:05:00]

And if -- if that takes longer, then he's happy to give that sort of time frame. You know, I was in the White House (INAUDIBLE) yesterday.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LOWELL: And we -- we asked him at multiple opportunities if his patience had run out with Iran, and he says, yes, but I still have, you know, the capacity to do a deal. It's late in the day, but I'll still do a deal.

And I think that's kind of what is underpinning this. I'm not I'm not so concerned about the two weeks in and of itself. I -- you know, I think you can read into that what his intentions are and his, I think, preference, it appears at the moment, is to try and get a deal.

COATES: A deal or an off-ramp?

LOWELL: I mean, it could be -- it could be both. It could be one in the same thing. Right? It could -- it could be that there are new parameters for -- for some sort of enrichment capacities. Who knows what it looks like? Right? You know, Witkoff is doing his thing --

COATES: Yeah.

LOWELL: -- and Trump is doing his thing. But who knows?

COATES: Let me ask you, Colonel Leighton. Is the two-week period advantageous if the military were to be involved? Is it by some time of a head start or preparation or anything?

CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL: Definitely on the preparation side, it does, because, you know, when you -- let's compare run ups to military activities. You know, let's -- you know, as an example, the run up to the Iraq war, the -- the second Gulf War. That took a lot of time to prepare all the forces to deploy forward to the Middle East, to get into position.

A big part of that, we recognized there was a, you know, significant task at hand and we practiced what we would be doing, at least from the air campaign perspective, at least two months before -- three months, actually, before the actual event happened. And we forward deployed. There were still diplomatic efforts being undertaken at that point in time.

And this is the kind of thing that you need. Yes, you can bring forces forward. You can bring the B-2s, you know, over -- over Iran. You could do that today if you wanted to. But -- but the rest of the pieces aren't in place yet.

And that's why the aircraft carriers are moving into position in the Eastern Mediterranean and possibly other parts of the Middle Eastern area. And you also have to bring in the air component, a lot of tankers. About 30 or so tankers have moved forward already. They will probably help a lot with the Israelis --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LEIGHTON: -- if we decide to do things together. So, the pieces are moving into position, but I think they're not quite there yet. So, President Trump is probably looking at this and saying, I need a little bit more time, and I can do the deal thing or at least talk about the deal thing, but have my military forces in play. In some ways, it gives them some strength to -- to do that from a military perspective.

COATES: Totally, because if -- if -- we're aware the military is getting into position, not waiting for there to be a definitive public statement from the president, which very well there could be behind the scenes discussions already happening that we're not privy to.

LEIGHTON: Uh-hmm.

COATES: Iran certainly is aware of that.

LEIGHTON: Yes.

COATES: And is positioning themselves accordingly or preparing themselves accordingly.

LEIGHTON: One of the best intelligence services in the Middle East is the Iranian Intelligence Service.

COATES: Yeah.

LEIGHTON: You know, Israelis, of course, you know, clearly, get -- yeah, I would say get the top spot. But the Iranians knew a lot about what we were doing. And they were able to take advantage of that situation once the Iraq war happened, and they did that. The same kind of thing could happen in this case. How they will take advantage remains to be seen. But we certainly have some ideas. They could certainly put at risk American forces who are already deployed and stationed in the Middle East, and that could be a -- a key element there.

COATES: You're reporting, Hugo, that the chances of a bunker buster operation being fully successful and ruining Fordow, it's a matter of debate in the administration behind the scenes, it's a matter of debate among administration officials, and that includes the president, I understand. What is Trump's skepticism about the ability for it to be a successful operation?

LOWELL: Yeah. I think it's more split into two things. Number one, you know, Trump has expressed advisers, according to our reporting, that, you know, if -- if the U.S. were to strike Fordow or any of these other facilities, he wants to be able to take them out, because if you go in and you -- doesn't have the intended effect, then there's really not much point.

And then it kind of gets the assessment of what -- what is possible. And what we found over the -- over our reporting was there was a briefing earlier in the year at the Pentagon to senior officials by DTRA, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, that helped develop and test this bunker busting bomb, the GBU-57.

And their assessment was if it was dropped by itself or if it was dropped as part of a strike package like one of the other, at best, maybe you set the program back five years because you buried it under rubble, you maybe collapse some tunnels near the surface because it doesn't have the capacity to go all the way to what we believe is the bottom of Fordow, which may be even deeper than 300 feet.

Israelis, you know, keep assessing their intelligence and seem to think it's getting deeper and deeper or has been in recent years.

And so, at some point there was a discussion about, well, what would actually take out Fordow? And at the Pentagon, the answer was, well, you create a hole with a GBU-57 and you have to drop a tactical nuke in it.

[23:10:02]

It's not clear that this has been briefed to the president or -- or -- or whether this has gotten out of the Pentagon, but we know this briefing took place and we know that this was communicated to senior political appointees.

COATES: Wait, you're -- you look a little incredulous about that.

LEIGHTON: Yeah. A tactical nuke would be one of the worst things that we could do in a situation like this. This would be the first time a nuclear weapon would have been used since World War II, and it's definitely not a place you want to be either militarily or diplomatically. LOWELL: I'll just say this. You know, we -- we did say in the reporting that Trump has not been briefed or did not come up in recent meetings in the Situation Room about this prospect of using a nuke. The White House, I should say, today -- well, Fox News is reporting that a White House official has said, you know, this -- this assessment is not correct.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LOWELL: But in doing so, they -- and in -- in refuting the reporting, at least in part, they have said all options on the table, including nukes. So, I think the messaging has gone a little jumbled.

COATES: Gentlemen, thank you so much. Colonel Leighton, thank you for being here. And, of course, Hugo, please stick around.

With me now, former state -- former State Department militant -- Middle East negotiator, excuse me, Aaron David Miller, and senior fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations, Max Boot.

Aaron, I want to begin with you here because President Trump said just yesterday that Iran was a few weeks away from having nuclear weapons. He's now giving himself a two-week window to make a decision. How are you reading this pause from President Trump?

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: I think the president blinked, Laura, basically.

COATES: Hmm.

MILLER: I mean, look, after staging that dramatic exit from Cal -- Calgary (ph), summoning the NSC several meetings, he has toggled back and forth since last Thursday between, yeah, I mean, Israelis are doing a great job and we got to get tough, Iranians have to understand that people in Tehran have to evacuate on one hand, and then a lot of words about negotiation and peace on the other.

And I think it's just as well, frankly, that he blinked because there are three outstanding questions which, according to Barak Ravid, the president has asked for answers. Number one, is it a military necessity to strike Iran for the U.S.? That's number one. Number two, would it work with the massive ordnance or ordnance penetrators can actually destroy Fordow? And number three, the most important question, what would the Iranian response be?

And the truth is -- I mean, I think whether it's his advisers or the president, there's some adult supervision actually taking place here because when -- when Americans go to war, three questions need to be asked. Number one, can we do it? Okay? Number two, should we do it? And number three, what are the costs and implications and the consequences of doing it?

And I think this delay, hopefully, the Iranians will come around to accept some sort of proposal for diplomatic off-ramp. Two weeks from now, Donald Trump is going to be faced, I think, with the exact same decision that he has faced with now. And at that point, he's going to have to make a decision.

COATES: Max, what do you think his decision ought to be following the line of questioning that Aaron articulated? The idea of can we, should we, and I would ask, will we?

MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, SENIOR FELLOW AT COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: You know, I think it's a very close call, Laura. It's -- it's very hard to say, which may be, in fact, why President Trump is not saying, because he is weighing the pros and cons, and I think they're very closely balanced on this case.

Now, I -- it's actually much more closely balanced now than if we'd asked this question a year ago because I think the Israeli attack on Iran has already kind of reset the strategic framework for this discussion because a year ago, it would have been much more risky for the United States to go out and attack Iran. Whereas right now, Israel has already degraded Iranian air defenses and left Iran almost helpless for attack from the air.

Israel has already started a war. The big argument against bombing Iran in the past was, we don't want to start a war. Right? But the war has already started. The consequences are being felt throughout the region.

And I -- you know, I think the -- the argument for doing something about Fordow is that after all of this offensive action by -- by Israel, after all their success in taking out the Iranian defenses and the top Iranian military echelon, at the end of the day, it's not going to achieve very much if the Fordow nuclear facility is still online. At the end of the day, Israel is only going to set Iran back by a few months.

And, in fact, what they might do is they might trigger an Iranian race for a nuclear weapon in response to this Israeli attack. And so, that would be the worst of all worlds.

And so, I think the question confronting President Trump is, is there any way to take out Fordow without U.S. Military action? And if there isn't, then I think there is a strong case for -- for U.S. Military action.

But Prime Minister Netanyahu is actually hinting, and other Israeli officials are hinting, that they have other methods that they could use to try to disable Fordow, including, I would think, a commando raid would be a possibility now even though it's risky.

COATES: Hmm.

[23:15:01]

BOOT: But Israel has air superiority over Iran, so they could theoretically insert ground forces to try to take out Fordow as well. So, these are all -- and, of course --

COATES: Yeah. BOOT: -- if the U.S. does strike, we have to consider the possibility of Iranian retaliation, including against shipping in the -- in the Strait of Hormuz. And their navy remains intact. That's still a very effective retaliatory option. They could target U.S. bases. So, it's a very complicated --

COATES: It is.

BOOT: -- that Trump has to weigh. I'm not surprised that he's kind of stepping back and saying, well, let's punt this into the future at some point.

COATES: Aaron, let me bring you back into this because it, as Max is talking about sort of the methods, let's talk a little bit about motive for a second because Israel's defense chair is saying today that Iran's supreme leader cannot continue to exist. At the same time, the Israeli president, Isaac Herzog, said they have no regime change goal. Which is it?

MILLER: Look, I think Israeli aspiration and Benjamin Netanyahu's mission -- one of his missions in life is to free the people of Israel from the shadow of an Iranian bomb. And I think the only way he believes that can be done is not through negotiations, not through waiting, but through risk ready action.

Military -- a military campaign supplemented by the United States would actually create, in his mind, perhaps, regime stabilization and would somehow pave the way. He has already encouraged the Iranian people to rise up, to basically change the government.

I -- I just think we have to be very realistic here. If the U.S. goes ahead and does Fordow, it will delay and set the program back. The only difficulty is it will not eradicate the program. I guarantee you, the Iranians have moved many of their advanced centrifuges out of Fordow and probably even before the Israelis struck last Thursday.

COATES: Hmm.

MILLER: They've clearly had a stockpile of highly-enriched uranium, which they've also moved places. So, you know, in my view, the only way to permanently guarantee that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon is to essentially change the acquisitive character of the regime. Get rid of it. And the reality is we can't do that. The Israelis can't do that.

Iranian public can do it. And it may well be that this crisis will create doubts in the minds of the security establishment and maybe even much of the public.

What is the -- what has this been for? Five trillion dollars is invested for this nuclear program. So, I just think we have to be very realistic about what we can actually accomplish. Even as Max says, and I think Cedric, I think he's right, it's going to be a very close call in the end about whether or not the president wants to be risk-ready or risk-averse.

COATES: Aaron David Miller, Max Boot, thank you both for your insight.

Still ahead tonight, perspective from a veteran who served in Afghanistan over the conflict in the Middle East. Maryland Governor Wes Moore standing by on what he thinks this moment calls for.

Plus, the breaking news out of California. A court giving President Trump full control of the state's National Guard. So, how will Governor Newsom respond? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking tonight, a federal appeals court ruling that President Trump can continue to control thousands of members of California's National Guard. This comes after a lower court ruling last week required Trump to return control to Governor Gavin Newsom.

The unanimous order from a three-judge panel reads -- quote -- "It is likely that the president lawfully exercised his statutory authority in federalizing the National Guard."

Joining me now, former Acting ICE director John Sandweg. John, how significant is this decision to you?

JOHN SANDWEG, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR AT ICE, FORMER ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL AT DHS: Well, Laura, I think it remains to be seen. I think the question will be, what does the president do in light of this decision? Meaning, does he deploy National Guard across the country?

The other, you know, he has indicated of late he wants to focus this worksite and these mass kind of deportation efforts in blue cities. The question will be, is he now seeking an opportunity to deploy National Guardsmen in those cities? I think one is, who likes the optics of what happened in California and Los Angeles? And then I think two is, it does provide an operational benefit. It allows ICE frees up some ICE officers.

Remember, these -- these National Guardsmen were doing two things. One is protecting federal buildings and the second was protecting ICE officers. That second mission does free up ICE officers to potentially (INAUDIBLE) arrests. So, again, I think the real question will be, what does the president do in light of this decision?

COATES: Also, question is, what Governor Newsom would do? Obviously, there's always the ability to appeal up the chain to the Supreme Court. I'm not sure that he has the numbers in his favor to have that precedent set in the long run. But does Newsom have other means of challenging this?

SANDWEG: Well, I could ask the Ninth Circuit to consider it en banc, right, to get the entire Ninth Circuit panel to weigh in. Of course, if he somehow prevails there, that'll go up to the Supreme Court by the administration. Laura, you know, the -- the court is looking, glancing at the opinion. You know, the question was, under the statute, the president could deploy the guard if he felt like he couldn't enforce the -- the nation's laws in regular order with federal officers. And what the Ninth Circuit really says, we have to defer to his determination.

I mean, he can't just do this unilaterally with no facts. But there were protests, there was some violence, and the president makes this decision. Supreme Court precedent, pointing back to some 200-year-old precedent, requires us to defer to his judgment.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SANDWEG: I don't know that the Supreme Court would see it differently, obviously, if it went up on appeal.

COATES: An interesting point in the deference. Obviously, to a president as well. A really big part of this conversation. John, please stand by.

I want to ask you about this because there has been some confusion about what really happened near Dodger Stadium today. Maybe you've all heard about this.

[23:24:58]

Video captured by our affiliate, KABC, showed federal agents stationed on the street that led to the stadium. The Dodgers put out this tweet, saying -- quote, "ICE agents came to Dodger Stadium and requested permission to access the parking lots. They were denied entry to the grounds." And then ICE shot back, saying, false, we were never there.

The Department of Homeland Security clarified that they were actually agents from a different agency under their umbrella. Customs and Border Protection saying that they were there briefly and -- quote -- "had nothing to do with the Dodgers."

A CBP official tells CNN that they had vehicles in the nearby parking lot when one of those cars malfunctioned and caused them to stay longer.

So, John, on this point, what stands out to you about these conflicting accounts between what the Dodgers are saying and what DHS says actually happened?

SANDWEG: It sure looks to me, Laura, like this was a staging area for now. And whether those were CBP officers or ICE agents or HSI, you know, the criminal investigative bomber of ICE, it's difficult to tell. It's certainly -- I could understand why there was confusion. Those are federal agents doing -- you know, staging there, following an immigration enforcement operation.

I'll say this, Laura. This kind of getting together post operation or pre-operation is pretty standard. When you're doing a large operation, you want to have a last minute, you know, a rendezvous site that's near where the operation is taking place. But regardless whether it's ICE agents or CBP, they're doing the same type of work. They're out there enforcing the immigration laws, doing some of this mass deportation work in Los Angeles.

You know, I think what's interesting to me is the fact that the local advocates caught onto it so quickly and responded so quickly, and then put pressure on the Dodgers to say, hey, we don't want you on our property. That, I think, is an interesting development that'll probably play out as this kind of work goes on throughout the year.

COATES: Obviously, Dodgers, they have a private parking lot. They can decide who can access it. But how does that change the dynamic if immigration agents need to request permission, and then certain businesses, whether it's as big as the Dodgers or as small as a mom and pop by Main Street, are the ones that have to give authorization? Does that present an issue when trying to enforce?

SANDWEG: I think, Laura, that we're going to see the advocate -- advocacy groups. Right? They -- they can't get anywhere by putting pressure on the administration.

COATES: Hmm.

SANDWEG: The state is already very -- the state and city are already very supportive of it. I think the next place for them to go is these private businesses. And you're exactly right. Generally, ICE is not allowed to enter private property without a judicial warrant, a search warrant or the consent of the owner.

Now, lately in some of these worksite operations, because they have the support of the U.S. attorney's office and the president has really, you know, pushed DOJ to make this the top priority of the department, they've been getting judicial warrants on a lot of the worksite operations.

But when they've been doing some of the Home Depots and some of the other kind of semi-public places, I don't think they've been getting a judicial warrant or any sort of consent at all.

It will be very interesting to me if these groups start putting pressure on these private land owners to do what the Dodgers did, say we don't want you on our property, you can't come on our property absent some sort of judicial warrant. That really would stymie it. I saw it just in my experience in dealing with the advocacy groups. They're -- they're pretty savvy about pivoting when they need it.

COATES: Well, we'll see if that takes place. Obviously, L.A. and other places have been on edge during different protests. We'll see how this impacts any of that. John Sandweg, thank you so much.

Up next, the Democratic Party also divided over the potential strike in Iran. Where does Governor Wes Moore stand on all of this? He'll join me on that, next. Plus, his reaction to President Trump's new suggestion tonight that Juneteenth need not be a federal holiday.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The debate over whether the U.S. should strike Iran isn't just splitting President Trump's base. Democrats are divided as well.

A new poll found that 32% of Democratic voters support Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites. And congressional Democrats aren't on the same page either.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): Yeah. Absolutely. I think I was maybe the only one that said we really have to fully support them taking out Iran at this point. We can't ever allow Iran to, you know, develop a nuclear weapon.

REP. PETER WELCH (D-VT): So, we have to keep Iran from having a bomb. I do agree with that. But what is really the agenda with Netanyahu is to go beyond that and get us involved in a regime change war with Iran. I adamantly oppose that.

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): This is an opportunity for the Democratic Party to be the anti-war party again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: My next guest knows about the dangers of war. Maryland Democratic Governor Wes Moore joins me now. He served in the 82nd Airborne Division and was deployed to Afghanistan.

Governor Moore, welcome back to the program. I -- I have to ask. As someone who served --

GOV. WES MOORE (D-MD): Thank you.

COATES: -- how are you viewing this debate over whether the president should carry out military strikes against Iran?

MOORE: You know, it's -- this is -- this is difficult because, you know, I think everyone can agree that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. You know, as someone who -- who has served overseas and -- and has seen many of the dangers that warfare can bring, we know that Iran has also been one of the largest underwriters of groups like Hezbollah and groups like Hamas, and so -- so I understand the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran.

I -- I also know there is a -- a lack of seriousness in the way that the president of the United States is talking about this and approaching this.

[23:34:57]

You know, when I'm hearing the president of the United States making comments like, you know, maybe I will, maybe I won't, there -- there's a -- there's a childishness that, I think, needs to be understood where -- where -- these are men and women who have raised their hands to serve this country, who are willing to put on the uniform, and are willing to give their lives, if required, on behalf of this country and its hopes and its dreams and its aspirations.

And -- and we need a president of the United States who actually meets this moment of seriousness with a degree of soberness. And I think that that has been the really unfortunate thing that we just have not seen, the seriousness that this moment requires.

COATES: Governor, some would look at what President Trump's doing is -- as perhaps not having a knee jerk reaction. Is he understanding the gravitas of it by not being definitive or is this some sort of a tactic, do you think?

MOORE: I -- I think what we're seeing is -- this is not about him being definitive or -- or not. You know, we're talking about issues of life and death. We're talking about something that none of us want to see --

COATES: Hmm.

MOORE: -- which is how do we avoid a broader war in the Middle East? How do we avoid a broader war that inevitably then spills out to also include having other nations, even not in just the region alone, that end up being involved?

This is a serious, serious time, and -- and we're just not seeing the level of depth, the level of analysis or the level of seriousness that -- that this type of issue really should require.

COATES: I mean, it is chilling to think about what could be and the prospect of war, as you say, so serious, so life changing, and impactful to so many people around the world. I mean, some people in -- in -- in your party like Congressman Ro Khanna say that this is an opportunity to reclaim the antiwar mantle from Trump. Where do you think the Democratic Party should be on this issue?

MOORE: I -- I -- I actually don't -- don't think that -- you know, I think that the military is a -- is -- is -- is a tool. Its usage is -- can be a tactic. But it's not something that every single issue either requires military functions or that every single issue never requires military functions.

I think that's where -- that's where an understanding and a discipline into this work is really required. I -- I think there are search certain situations and there have been certain situations in world history where military and kinetic force was required. And there have been certain situations where military and kinetic force was not required and used, and there were disastrous consequences of it.

COATES: Hmm.

MOORE: So that's why I think you need to have serious people who are around the table debating this and making sure that -- that we never want to get into a situation where we're having a larger war inside of the Middle East.

We need to do everything in our power to be able to avoid that. And at the same time, though, how we are debating it, how we are discussing it, and how we're working with our partners and allies is absolutely crucial to make sure we can achieve our objectives.

COATES: Let's talk about a debate that's here on the home front. As you know, there has been a significant effort by this administration to carry out mass deportations right here at home. And a lot of your Democratic colleagues have been protesting the ICE raids that we've been seeing all across the country. How are you navigating these deportations in your state of Maryland?

MOORE: You know, it's deeply frustrating because, you know, the immigration issue -- I mean, first, it's a very personal issue for me. You know, I'm -- I was raised by an immigrant single mom. And so, these are debates and conversations that -- that -- that we have often with even family members about this issue.

But the thing that I know is that we do have a broken immigration system. We've had a broken immigration system for a very long time. And we know who can fix that broken immigration system. That's Congress. And they're just choosing not to do it.

And so, us as governors, us as chief executives of our states, we end up dealing with the -- with the debris that comes from this broken system. We don't have the rights nor the authorities nor the legal justifications to be able to change immigration policy.

I follow the Constitution. But what I do know is that the Congress has an obligation to fix it. They are not. The president has the ability to get Congress to change it. He is choosing not to.

So, they are just choosing to use means, many of which, by the way, are illegal, to be able to try to address this issue in a way that they know that if they could just pass a law, a comprehensive immigration bill to fix it, they actually could fix this thing by next week. And they're just choosing not to and choosing to weaponize it. And that's what's so frustrating for us as chief executives.

COATES: Are you instructing jurisdictions to cooperate with ICE?

MOORE: Yeah, I'm instructing my jurisdiction to follow the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear about where the line is, about what is the federal jurisdictions and what are state and local authorities supposed to do.

And so, the guidance that I've given to all of my state agencies, the guidance that I've given to all of our local jurisdictions is very clear, and it's not moving.

[23:39:58]

Follow the Constitution because the Constitution very clearly lays out where our authority lines go to and where our authority lines do not go to. I will -- we will make sure that we focus on public safety. Public safety is my number one priority. And we will work and coordinate with anyone to get violent criminals and violent crimes, get them taken care of and get those people off of our streets. And at the same time, though, I'm not going to violate the Constitution. I'm going to make sure that I follow the laws.

COATES: Governor, in recognition of -- of Juneteenth, you actually made thousands of people who had convictions of marijuana possession now eligible for pardons. You're also investing in hundreds of communities that your office says were historically underserved. You had been criticized for vetoing reparations bill in the past. Why do you think the measures that you announced today are a better path forward?

MOORE: Yeah. The measures that I announced today is focused on direct action. And there has been a cold collection of scholarship that has been done on -- on this issue. And when I think about the -- the work that has been done in Maryland, there have been four commissions over the past 25 years that have been done to work around these types of issues.

What I know is the bill that was passed that I vetoed was a Maryland commission on reparations to study and then make recommendations to the governor in two years. Well, I am the governor.

COATES: Hmm.

MOORE: And I don't need two years. I want action. And so, what we announced today were true action steps. We announced a pardon of over -- mass pardon of over seven -- of 7,000 individuals for misdemeanor, cannabis convictions, getting them back into the workforce, reintegrating them back with their families, and majority of them African-American.

And the other thing that we announced was the most aggressive package, $400 million, that's going directly to communities that have been directly impacted by this collusion that we saw between government and the private sector to harm Black communities, 419 different communities all throughout our state.

And so, we're -- we're really -- we're -- we're -- we're encouraged by the fact that there is the largest, the most aggressive push that we've had to address this issue because I believe in this moment. What people are looking for is not -- is not a commission. What people are looking for and what this moment requires is action. And that's exactly what I will do in partnership -- in -- in -- in partnership with all of our partners here.

COATES: As you define the difference between talk about it and be about it, governor, as you know, today is a federal holiday. The White House did not put out any statement marking it. And on Truth Social, President Trump posted -- quote -- "Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our country billions of dollars to keep all of these businesses closed." Obviously, today is Juneteenth. What is your response to the president's statements? MOORE: I -- I actually didn't see the president's statement. I was too busy presenting one of the largest mass pardons in -- in the history of this country and also passing the "Just Communities Act" which allocated over $400 million to disadvantaged communities and Black communities that have been intentionally harmed over the process of -- of these years.

And so, you know, the thing that I know is, you know, while I -- I did not follow what the president of the United States said about Juneteenth, here in Maryland, we celebrated Juneteenth, and we celebrated Juneteenth with action.

COATES: Governor Wes Moore, thank you for joining.

MOORE: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, look who's back. Steve Bannon seen at the White House on the very same day that President Trump announced the two-week timeline on Iran. Does Bannon have the president's year? And what about the director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard? New reporting tonight suggests she may be falling out of favor inside the White House.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Some of the biggest T.V. stars in President Trump's Cabinet may have a smaller role as he decides what to do with Israel and Iran. "The Washington Post" reports that Trump is leaning on a small circle of experienced aides known as Tier One: Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

That, of course, raises questions about the roles of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard. Sources telling CNN that Gabbard is falling out of favor with the president, partially because she posted a video warning about the dangers of nuclear war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Spokespeople for Gabbard and Hegseth both disputed to the post that the two were not fully engaged in advising Trump. Hugo Lowell is back with me along with Michael Isikoff, investigative reporter and co-author of "Find Me the Votes." Michael, would the National Intelligence director usually play a much more prominent role in weighing this decision, and (INAUDIBLE) of it she's not?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, CO-AUTHOR OF "FIND ME THE VOTES:" Yeah. Absolutely. Look, I mean, the most astonishing thing or one of the most astonishing things that Trump has said in recent days is, I don't care what she says.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

[23:49:57]

ISIKOFF: This is -- he's talking about his director of National Intelligence, who had testified in Marsh that Iran was not on the verge of getting a nuclear bomb.

COATES: Surely relevant.

ISIKOFF: You would think. And, you know, of all the people in his Cabinet who you would expect he would -- he should be listening to, it's the director of National Intelligence. But, obviously, she has such a flawed record so far.

Last week, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, called for her resignation over her manipulation of intelligence on the whole Venezuelan gang issue. She puts out that video that clearly seemed to be designed to make a political point within the administration, a very odd way to advance your agenda when you're a ranking Cabinet member.

So, there's a lot of reasons that, I think, she might be falling out of favor.

COATES: That video, I mean, it confounded some in Washington for the very reasons that Michael is articulating, and especially since she should have the president's ear to her degree. He is the one who said he wanted her in this position, and then he made different statements later on. But why is it bothering Trump so much? Is it the tactic that she has used or her herself?

LOWELL: I think -- I think it's a bit of both. The -- the problem that she has is, you know, she also has to compete with a lot of other people in Trump's orbit. And when you're the, you know, so-called problem child doing your own thing, it -- it kind of stands out. And, you know, Pete Hegseth had this problem himself early on in the administration with Signalgate.

So, like, when you do things that draw attention to yourself that look bad to the president, and then the president admonishes you are kind of semi-publicly, shall we say, inside the West Wing, then I think that's the indication that you are stepping out of line.

COATES: Speaking of the West Wing, there was an interesting lunch guest with the president of the United States, Steve Bannon. What can you tell us about that? And, of course, he earlier this week was warning the president that intervening would -- quote -- "tear the country apart. We can't have another Iraq." Does he have the president's ear?

LOWELL: Yeah. Fascinating timing, actually. The dinner wasn't originally supposed to be today. It was -- it was scheduled previously and Bannon got the flu and then he couldn't go and then he went today. But the lunch lasts a long time. It lasted for several hours, actually.

COATES: Hmm.

ISIKOFF: Can I just say -- look, it wasn't too long ago that Steve Bannon was in jail, in D.C. jail for refusing to testify before the January 6 committee. Earlier this year, he -- he copped to a felony in a fraud case in New York about building the wall. You know, it used to be that backgrounds like that would keep you out of the White House.

COATES: What decade are we in right now?

ISIKOFF: Yeah. I know.

COATES: It's very different.

ISIKOFF: But for obvious reasons --

(LAUGHTER)

-- those standards don't apply in this administration. I should point out that just the day before, there was a big White House celebration for the new ambassador to France, Charles Kushner, a convicted felon himself who was pardoned by President Trump. So, criminal convictions don't really matter all that much. But just, you know --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: -- on this issue because -- I mean, he was there the same day that Trump has said, essentially, I'm going to wait two weeks.

ISIKOFF: Yeah.

COATES: That was --

ISIKOFF: This is all about managing the MAGA base. Right? There's clearly this split between those who are -- who want to go forward with the military attack and those who are absolutely resisting it. Bannon is with the camp that is resisting it, that doesn't believe that we should be going to war on behalf of Israel and wants, you know, 'American First' to the -- to the max.

And so, this is Trump's way of -- of managing that base, keeping lines of communication open with Bannon so he doesn't completely lose that if he goes in the opposite direction and does bomb Fordow.

COATES: So, which camp has his ear?

LOWELL: Well, I think it is kind of self-evident. I think the fact that Bannon was there today, you know, it should not be lost in anyone that Bannon does talk to the president still.

And the fact that he was there for three hours and -- I mean, let's be honest. He -- he made his case why the U.S. should not launch any strikes on Iran. He has been saying it all week. He has been very vocal about it. He has mobilized a lot of his allies who also speak to a lot of people inside the West Wing. I think, you know, that should not be underestimated.

You know, there are a lot of people inside the Pentagon as well who also are in the restraint camp. You know, we -- we mentioned someone like General Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the -- one of the senior officials who are in the White House Situation Room this week who have been advocating for a more cautious approach.

What they are up against is someone like General Erik Kurilla. You know, this is this split inside the Pentagon now, right, where you have the chief of CENTCOM, the Central Command, which actually oversees the Middle East, who has been very antagonistic towards Iran, shall we say, and has been wanting to launch strikes for a long time.

[23:55:06]

That is the person pushing, and Bannon is in the opposite direction.

COATES: Well, we have two weeks, it seems. Whether that timeline is being held or not or whether Israel is on that same timeline, we'll have to wait and see. A lot of unanswered questions tonight and yet a brief reprieve. Thank you both.

Just in, we are getting reports of a new Iranian strike in southern Israel. This is video from the scene. Israeli police tell CNN there are no casualties at the moment, but there appears to be significant damages to the buildings and cars. We're told rescue crews are now conducting searches to see if anyone was hurt.

Erica Hill will have much more on this as she picks up CNN's live breaking news coverage next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)