Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Escalates Attacks Against Smithsonian Museums; House Panel To Make Epstein Files Public After Redactions; Trump Administration Eyes Stake In Intel; When And Where Will The Putin- Zelenskyy Meeting Happen?; MAGA Fumes Over Newsom's Trump-Style Trolling Campaign. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 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: Well, tonight, I am starting to wonder whether the president knows what a museum is. Why? Because he is telling his lawyers to make the Smithsonian somehow have a glass half full approach to slavery. What?

Then, of course, the Epstein files continue to become public. A House committee is saying that's a real possibility. But one of its members who is my guest, well, they have a different philosophy. They're saying nice try, it's all a DOJ kind of cover-up.

And potential moves by the administration to take Intel and take some part of it. What that could really mean and what is making people freak out.

All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

You know, the lawyer in me loves, and I mean loves, a good, healthy debate. But if you think, for some reason tonight, that I'm going to debate the issue of slavery and whether it was bad, as if there are two sides to this issue, you can feel free to change the channel right now. You know I operate in the realm of reality here on "Laura Coates Live." You're smarter than that. I'm smarter than that. We're all smarter than that.

But someone wants to pretend that we don't see an okie-doke coming from a mile away. They hope the right spin will make you question that you're even sane. This isn't an asylum, people. This is "Laura Coates Live." This is the real world.

But here is today's reality, according to True Social. President Trump is taking issue with how our museums teach about slavery. Look at his post.

The Smithsonian is out of control, where everything discussed is how horrible our country is, how bad slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been. Nothing about success, nothing about brightness, nothing about the future. We are not going to allow this to happen. And I have instructed my attorneys to go through the museums and start the exact same process that has been done with colleges and universities where tremendous progress has been made. This country cannot be woke, because woke is broke.

Where to begin? The lawyer in me wants an evidence. Make your argument. Accompany it with facts. Give me at least, at the bare minimum, specific examples of Smithsonian exhibits that are so out of control or woke or, otherwise, would like to do the guessing and try to attach level of credibility to an otherwise farcical argument.

One of the eight Smithsonian museums that Trump has referenced and is reviewing is, surprise, surprise, the National Museum of African American History and Culture. And yes, it goes into the unvarnished truth of slavery in America, the brutal reality that millions endured and the impact that still felt today.

But the museum, if you actually go to it rather than just talk about it and see it on paper from a Truth Social post, it doesn't only focus on suffering. It is about resilience and achievement and celebration, umbrella, history.

Take this sports exhibition that highlights the achievements of greats like Muhammad Ali and Jim Brown, Olympic uniforms from Gabby Douglas and Carl Lewis, or double victory honoring African Americans who served in the United States Military, the Airmen, to Purple Hearts, and more. There are musical crossroads celebrating Black influence on everything from jazz, an American-made form of music, all the way through hip-hop. And yes, it includes Louis Armstrong's trumpet. How about "Spirit in the Dark?" It's about how religion is essential to the story of Black America.

Well, that's woke. Then maybe woke just means telling the whole story because every exhibition that I just mentioned showcases exactly what Trump says that he wants: Success, brightness, a look toward the future.

[23:05:00]

And Trump, well, he should know that because the museum is what he visited in 2017 during his first term.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: This museum is a beautiful tribute to so many American heroes. It's amazing to see. I went to -- we did a pretty comprehensive tour, but not comprehensive enough. So, Lonnie, I'll be back. I told you that. Because I could stay here for a lot longer, believe me. It's -- it's really incredible. This tour was a meaningful reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance, and hatred in all of its very ugly forms.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You hear that? A meaningful -- the museum is a meaningful reminder to fight bigotry, intolerance, and hatred in all of its ugly -- very ugly forms. Couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. President. This post feels like he's driving around, looking for a problem with no particular place to go. Kind like he was in Chuck Berry's red Cadillac which, by the way, is also on display there.

I'm joined now by two scholars, very esteemed Michael Eric Dyson, distinguished university professor of African American & Diaspora Studies at Vanderbilt University, and Tim Naftali, CNN presidential historian and former director of the Nixon Presidential Library. I'm glad to have you both here on planet Earth. Let's stay there, gentlemen.

Let me begin with you, Tim. I have often heard that phrase, that history will judge us. President Trump seems to be saying it's too judgmental. Isn't this the first foreign American president?

TIMOTHY NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY: Well, no, it isn't. It's the first for an American president to do this while president. There is a great tension in our presidential libraries over -- between positive and -- and negative legacy. I mean, legacy can be positive and negative. Many presidential foundations just want the museum to display the positive legacy.

A lot of curators, I was one of them, felt that the American people deserve to know the full story, words and all. That's the way you understand our history. Our story is an unfinished story. You know, our founders wanted to create a more perfect union. They didn't say they were creating a perfect union.

And so, do you deprive people the story of how we have evolved, how we have gotten better, how we have come closer to those ideals that were set forth by our framers, or do you tell people a lie, saying we were perfect from the beginning? Because if you tell them that, how do you explain the Civil War?

COATES: Well, if you tell them that lie as well, Tim, you know, that phrase, you're doomed to repeat it. Now, I'm not suggesting we're going to repeat the Middle Passage per se, but the idea of erasing the reality that was foundational -- I mean, we are a country that has said -- has seen something and said something. We saw a monarchy, we said something. A la the Revolutionary War and beyond. You see something, you say something. The Civil War. See something. You feel -- know my drift here on and on and on.

What is the problem with acknowledging that there was slavery? Why would that be something to erase given the fact that, as far as I can recall, there's not a single person alive today from 1619?

NAFTALI: I believe the problem for people of a certain ideology is that it undermines a set of misinformation that young people in certain parts of the country are being fed all the time. There is a desire to create a sense of victimhood among certain white folks in this country. And there is a feeling that others have claimed for themselves the role of victimhood --

COATES: Hmm. NAFTALI: -- and that that was wrong. We historians are not interested in creating victims. We are interested in telling the story of opportunity and the opposite that have shaped our country. How can you possibly explain the desire for voting rights among African Americans if you don't talk about Jim Crow? How can you possibly explain the fact that this country eliminates slavery, abolishes it, and then creates it in a slightly different form in the south?

COATES: Hmm.

NAFTALI: That it would take a hundred years to live up to the great American ideals of this country. A hundred years. You have to tell that story.

COATES: Yeah.

[23:09:59]

NAFTALI: If you don't tell that story, you can't explain why Black families did not enjoy the transmission of intergenerational wealth because they were deprived the opportunity to create that wealth in the first place.

COATES: Let me bring you, Michael -- yeah.

NAFTALI: You can't explain.

COATES: I hear you.

NAFTALI: In any way --

COATES: Hold on. I want to bring in Michael Eric Dyson. Hold on a second, Tim. I want to bring in Michael Eric Dyson to this conversation as well because I'd be remiss if I did not lean on his mind as well, as the scholar that he is. But why are we back here with a conversation from the president of United States wanting to curate, rid, eliminate the history of slavery?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, PROFESSOR OF AFRICAN AMERICAN & DIASPORA STUDIES, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Well, as Professor Naftali just indicated here, the reality is that museums are bulwarks against collective amnesia. The purpose of a museum is to remind us through independent curatorial impulse, through research, through libraries, through museums, right, to create the collective conscience of a nation and the collective conscience of a nation.

And in order to do that, you have to have artifacts, you have to have facts, you have to have deposits made, you have to have arguments made. You have to feature the good, the bad, the ugly. You've got to feature the entire culture.

Fascists are interested in deploying museums as extensions of propaganda. Remember, in Italy, under Mussolini, that's how the museum was projected, uh, to -- to further the notion of romantica, the romanness. We have in this country the attempt to extend the tradition of Americana, a narrow version of what it means to be an American. And for the president to suggest that we are only focusing on the negative, you brilliantly deconstructed that. You demythologize that, Ms. Coates, at the beginning of this show when you talk about the variety of impulses, strands of history that are weaved together in that American museum that happens to be focused on African American culture and history.

And I finally say this: Is it called the Jewish museum? It's called the holocaust museum. Why? Because the holocaust was central to the 20th century in defining genocide and its ability to eradicate and eviscerate entire populations.

This is what happened in America. And what's happening now is that a president extends that fascist impulse to use the museum as a footstool for his personally chosen artifacts of history as opposed to the independent rigorous assessment of what we have in this nation. That's what museums are for, and he is destroying it. Woke in his mind means white oppression keeps emerging.

COATES: Hmm. Michael, Tim, I'll leave it on an acronym, for sure. Thank you both.

I've got CNN analyst and New York Times White House correspondent, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, who joins the conversation now. I mean, it is disorienting in many ways that I am sitting here at 11 o'clock at night, in the year 2025, getting ready to pick your wonderful brain about a president of United States, who somehow believes that a glass half full approach should be made with respect to slavery, of all things.

And you write at today's post this: Quote -- "The latest example of Mr. Trump trying to impose his will on a cultural institution and minimize the experiences and history of Black people in this country." Why does he focus on this issue? It's all of the variety of to-do lists --

ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah.

COATES: -- he must have.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Yeah, yeah, yeah. You say it's disorienting. It is in a way, but it's also part of a pattern.

COATES: Hmm.

KANNO-YOUNGS: So, it also isn't in a way, right, when you look at some of the previous actions by this administration. For one, yes, this is an independent or historically an independent cultural institution, the Smithsonian.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KANNO-YOUNGS: And we have seen that one theme in this second administration. President Trump trying to imprint sort of his MAGA stamp not just on federal policy but also on the private sector, also on education, and on cultural institutions, the Kennedy Center as well.

COATES: Right.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Right? And now, we have the Smithsonian. This stems from an executive order earlier this year. After that, just last week, the administration sent a letter to the director of the Smithsonian --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KANNO-YOUNGS: -- Institute as well saying they were going to conduct a review, basically sending officials to examine the exhibits in each of these museums to see if they align with the president's view of the country and its history.

COATES: Right.

KANNO-YOUNGS: And that's the other piece of this here. Throughout these six or seven months now, the administration has led a purge of diversity and equity programs in the federal government as well as tried to dictate how the private sector and cultural institutions and our education system treats diversity, too. In the course of that, let's just list some of the actions that they've taken.

[23:14:58]

Removing words like injustice from government websites. Obscuring or just erasing Black heroes such as Harriet Tubman, the Tuskegee Airmen before restoring it as well, but they did obscure that as well. Commemorating Juneteenth, the president did by complaining about too many non-working holidays as well.

This is part of a pattern of a number of actions to minimize Black history and part of an overall approach to try and reshape American society and American history in a way that the president seems fit.

COATES: And yet I have to wonder whether this is something just for his own personal objective or is it, which I think is more likely, a political strategy.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Yeah.

COATES: But is the so-called anti-wokeness movement, is it still politically viable, particularly given -- I mean, he seems to have gotten some wins recently when it comes to the public behind him on the ideas of crime and being tougher on it, even the nation's capital. Is anti-woke still the vehicle to get more support?

KANNO-YOUNGS: Yeah. I think it's more than just anti-woke, though. I mean, we wrote earlier this year that President Trump, during the campaign, has been a master of tapping into white grievance, right? A sense of victimhood among white people not just in this country but really around the world. Remember that South Africa meeting as well when he was making false claims about white genocide in South Africa --

COATES: Gave asylum.

KANNO-YOUNGS: That's right. That's right. Gave refugee status to Afrikaners as well. So, you know, it's -- yes, there's tap, there's -- I mean, woke and DEI for this administration, this president has kind of become a catchall phrase for just, frankly, anything that he doesn't like or any of society's ills.

But more so, there is -- I talked to a political analyst that focuses on politics, particularly when it comes to the Black community. But even he -- I asked him to reflect on this today, and he was saying that he thinks this is another way to basically -- for President Trump to tell his base, you don't need to be victims in a way, I'm seeing your white victimhood, and I'm tapping into this white grievance.

COATES: But also, more than that, is he tapping into the idea -- you heard him in the campaign during the first campaign, especially when he was talking to Black people in particular --

KANNO-YOUNGS: Yeah.

COATES: -- hoping to get their vote --

KANNO-YOUNGS: Yeah.

COATES: -- by suggesting that the man was oppressing them into thinking that they themselves were victims.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Right.

COATES: Kind of give a paternalistic view.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Right, right, right. Yes, I've seen -- I've heard that message, too. I've also heard from some voters. I was reporting on this theme of the inroads he was making with Black men, and there was definitely a theme you would hear from people close to Trump that would say like -- look, one message that's really potent is, you know, we -- that his team doesn't frame everybody as a victim, right? Everyone is part of this American story as he tries to highlight the achievements and patriotism of America.

To be frank, I'm not sure just how potent that is, even when it comes to Black voters who voted for Trump. When I was out on the campaign trail, what was much -- what mattered much more than actions like this were the economy, the social safety net, crime, you know, as well.

So, to say that there's like a strong political strategy here, I don't know how much weight there is behind that. I think this is another example of a president who has come into office and is surrounded by people that are willing to allow him to do the things that he wasn't going to do the first time around. He is emboldened this time, much more than the first term. This is another example of that.

COATES: I just don't get why you have to arrest -- I mean, erase the T-rex to show that we no longer have dinosaurs walking among us.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Uh-hmm. COATES: Both can be true.

KANNO-YOUNGS: That's right.

COATES: Zolan, thank you so much. Still ahead tonight, a plan for Congress to release some of the DOJ's Epstein files to you all, and me, the public. Here's the catch. Only after they get them in batches. Only after the House Oversight Committee makes redactions. And the top Democrat on that committee says it's not good enough. Congressman Robert Garcia will join me to explain next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, a new reason to say TGIF. That's because Friday is the day the House Oversight Committee says they'll start getting the DOJ's Epstein files. And today, the committee says that they plan on making those files public.

Now, will we get to see them on Friday? Probably not. The chair of the committee, Congressman James Comer, said the DOJ needs more time to provide the documents. The committee said they would do -- they want to do a thorough review, making sure that all the victims' identities are redacted. So, will there truly be transparency or will they all be kind of a tease?

My next guest is not mincing words, calling the drip, drip, drip of information a White House cover-up. Ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia, joins me now. Congressman, welcome. I've got to start with the cover-up. Explain why you think the DOJ is fueling a White House cover-up.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): Well, when Donald Trump spends years campaigning on releasing the Epstein files, his entire campaign team, his supporters are all obsessed about ensuring these files are released.

Then he gets into the White House and completely flip-flops after we know, by the way, that Pam Bondi, his A.G., has told Donald Trump, as reported, that he's in the files, and then tries to stop the release. That is the beginning of a major cover-up, and that continues.

Now, Republicans on the Oversight Committee and across the Congress are trying to hide for Donald Trump. They're trying to create excuses for Donald Trump. They're lionizing people like Ghislaine Maxwell, who is a sex predator and has caused horrific harm, as we know, to young women and girls.

And now, after Democrats force a subpoena vote to get the files, we force that vote on Republicans, they're now intending to slowly release the files.

[23:25:00] We want all the files right now, and Pam Bondi and Donald Trump have the power to do so.

COATES: You don't want to wait for redactions. Why?

GARCIA: Look, redactions, when it comes to victims, is absolutely appropriate, and we all agree there. There should absolutely not be redactions as it relates to the client lists or perpetrators or folks that have caused harm on others. There's no reason to redact anything in those files with the exception of the names of the victims that have been impacted.

And so, what we're waiting for, we're not sure. We know that all that major redactions had already been done by the Justice Department. We know that the files themselves, per Pam Bondi, were sitting on her desk.

And so, why the slow, oh, we just don't understand? They're obviously hiding something, and Donald Trump is not interested in getting the files out to the public. He has betrayed the public. He has lied to his supporters, and it's time for the American public to have the truth.

COATES: Well, naturally, one is going to argue and suggest that just naming people or having people who have been accused of a crime would be tarred and feathered in the public square, so to speak, but we'll see what actually comes out from the unredacted portions of that.

But you also say the former attorney general, Bill Barr, who spoke behind closed doors this week, did not clear President Trump of wrongdoing during that Monday interview. Did the former attorney general give the committee any reason for the current A.G., Pam Bondi, to not release the files?

GARCIA: Yeah, and this is really important. I mean, first, it was pretty clear from -- from Bill Barr that he was not involved in much of the Epstein files. He hadn't reviewed all the Epstein documents. So, he made it clear to the committee, and it was clear to us that there is no way that he would know the details of what per se Donald Trump or others may have been involved with or not. So, that's clear.

COATES: And you believe him?

GARCIA: Look, I think he -- he -- he made his statements in front of a bi -- the bipartisan committee. And so, we're taking -- we're taking what he's saying at his word.

COATES: Okay.

GARCIA: But it's important for us, anything -- anything that not just the A.G. says, but anyone that has deposed. It's critically important that that is corroborated by the facts in the actual Epstein files documents. And so, any testimony that we get, which why I keep saying the release of the files is so important, to ensure that we can actually match that with what's being said. We want to believe the people that are in front of us, but it also has to be corroborated by other information than the actual files.

Now, what Barr did say, it was really important, he confirmed to us that Pam Bondi right now, today, has the power to release all of the files. He made that clear. Pam Bondi knows that. And the fact that they are right now slow walking this release is all about them playing games and, in my opinion, trying to deceive the American public. They're trying to create cover for Donald Trump.

COATES: Really quick, when you get the files, will the public get them simultaneously?

GARCIA: We obviously -- once we get the files, our intention is to get the files released to the public. We've also said that --

COATES: On what timeline?

GARCIA: I don't have -- we don't even know the extent of what we're about to get on Friday. It's all going to be done in chunks. And so, we want the public not only get the files, any deposition like Bill Barr's, we've told the committee majority, let's get all of that public. Put the video out there, put the recordings out there. Let's make as much of this investigation public as possible, and Democrats support that.

COATES: Congressman Garcia, thank you. Up next, a new chapter in Trumponomics. Sounds a lot like state capitalism. There's talk saying that the U.S. could take a stake in Intel. Whatever happened to keeping government out of business. I'll ask Kara Swisher and Justin Wolfers next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Republicans have been talking about keeping government out of business since, well, forever, really. But now, a new move by the administration seems to be challenging that very notion.

Today, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick confirmed the United States government is considering taking a 10% stake in the struggling chipmaker, Intel. Now, would that work? A report suggests that the United States could soon repurpose over $10 billion in recent federal grants to Intel as a way to boost domestic chip manufacturing and also help prop up the company financially, of course. The way Lutnick sees it, this is America's way of getting something in return.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD LUTNICK, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: We should get -- America should get the benefit of the bargain. I mean, that is exactly Donald Trump's perspective, which is why are we giving the company worth a hundred billion dollars, this kind of money. What are in it for the American taxpayer? And the answer Donald Trump has is we should get an equity state for our money. So, we'll deliver the money, which was already committed under the Biden administration. We'll get equity in return for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, CNN contributor and host of the "On" and "Pivot" podcasts, Kara Swisher, and professor of economics and public policy at Michigan -- University of Michigan -- excuse me -- Justin Wolfers. I'm glad to have you both here. Kara, let me begin with you. Does the government want to be --

KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, OPINION CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: Yeah.

COATES: -- in the business of having a stake in a major corporation? Should they?

SWISHER: Well, it depends. I mean, industrial policy tends not to work in a capitalistic society. It feels a little Russian. You know, the idea that the government does things like this.

[23:35:00]

And the government is -- is already in business, with business in many ways. And a lot of people felt, for example, when the government lent Tesla money when it was struggling, it should have had a stake, it would have benefited from that, the American taxpayer doing that, or rescuing the car industry, as we did, or banks, or things like that.

And so, it's always been thought, why doesn't the government benefit from the help it gives companies? And on the other hand, that's what the government is there for, to help companies grow and thrive and be partners with them in research or whatever.

And so, you know, it's not way off -- off the ledge. It's just a question of whether this is a big for a favor or if it's something that really benefits the U.S. taxpayer.

COATES: That's the big question. The details, of course, still outstanding. But Justin, listen to what the Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: The last thing we're going to do is put pressure, is take the stake, and then try to drum up business. There's no talk of trying to force companies to buy from Intel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: They would give Intel taxpayer money, but not do anything else to help it get new business. Does that square in with you?

JUSTIN WOLFERS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS & PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: With these guys, sometimes, every denial feels like a confession, doesn't it?

COATES: Hmm.

WOLFERS: Look, let me pose a question this way. To what problem is the U.S. government buying stock in Intel the solution? So, if you think about what it's doing, if the U.S. government buys stock in Intel, it's literally taking a bunch of stock certificates from someone safe, putting it in the federal government safe instead. That's it. It's not creating new markets for them. It's not overhauling management. It's not coming forward with a new strategy. It's just moving stock certificates around.

This doesn't solve any fundamental problem except for when you then get to the issues that Kara was raising, which is, now, all of a sudden, the federal government, in particular Trump administration, owns 10% of a major chip maker. What's next? Twenty percent of Coke, 30% of McDonald's, 40% of Apple.

At what point does this stop? How is it that they make this investment make sense? Do they call Apple and bully them into buying the chips that they don't want, rather buy the chips that the federal governmen is now a major stockholder?

Look, Donald Trump already got a lot of jobs. The one job I don't want to give him is stock picker in chief. I'm happy to sit at home. I'm going to buy a diversified index funder. I don't need this bloke taking my tax money and making a bet on one particular company that he happens to fancy.

COATES: Kara, is Intel uniquely positioned here that it wouldn't have that slippery slope effect or is this maybe a harbinger?

SWISHER: Well, I think probably the idea behind it is to get a national champion in chipmaking. You know, we have -- most of our chips come from Taiwan, and we're very vulnerable from a national security point of view. So, Intel has really been struggling largely due to its own fault and due to innovation and things like that, bad decisions on the part of its various CEOs.

And so, the idea is we would have a national champion. I think that's probably what's in their heads. And to boost it and keep it going would be -- would be one positive thing, presumably. But again, industrial policy always -- I think the markets should decide these things. And it's a global world, and that's difficult if we're vulnerable on something.

Chips are the oil of this century, right? And so, we have to have some being made here. Now, a lot are being made here actually by lots of different makers. But the question is, do we need an American company that is dominant and should the government give it a boost?

Now, if it goes up, if it innovates and does well, that would be great. If it turns into what happened to Tesla, that would be great for the U.S. government. If it didn't, you could be holding the bag on a troubled company and have just a bad stock investment. Government shouldn't be in the business of investing in stocks. It seems a little odd. But I can see why they're doing it in lots of different ways.

COATES: So, Justin, follow that thread. Do the negative consequences outweigh the benefits of this, economically speaking?

WOLFERS: Right. So, Kara gave the rationale for what they're doing. They think that chipmaking is important. There's a national security argument. That's true.

But thing is specific problems require specific solutions. If, for instance, we have a national security interest in getting more A.I. chips made, and that's over and above what the market demands, then the federal government could pay more for A.I. chips. That doesn't mean subsidizing the rest of Intel's business. It doesn't mean taking major holdings throughout the economy.

And so, it's a poorly thought through solution, but it's, I think, probably because it's a poorly articulated understanding of the problem beyond the big guy in the White House who likes to own things and throw his weight around.

COATES: Imagine this. A solution in terms of a problem. Kara and Justin, thank you both for trying to explain. I appreciate it.

SWISHER: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, no date, no location.

[23:40:00]

Will a Putin-Zelenskyy summit actually happen? Well, Trump says yes, even as Russia won't lock anything down. Plus, Governor Gavin Newsom ruffles MAGA feathers by cranking up the Trump-style trolling campaign. Is he really grabbing America's attention to this matter? Well, Harry Enten has got the numbers just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: President Trump embracing a new role, mediator-in-chief, pushing to move along a potential Putin-Zelenskyy summit to end the war in Ukraine. And tonight, the president says a meeting just between those two leaders is the best next step in negotiations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP (voice-over): I had a very successful meeting with President Putin. I had a very successful meeting with President Zelenskyy. And now, I thought it would be better if they met without me.

[23:45:00]

Just to see -- I want to see what goes on. You know, they had a hard relationship. Very bad, very bad relationship. And now, we'll see how they do. And if necessary, and it probably would be, but if necessary, I'll go and I'll probably be able to get it closed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The problem is Vladimir Putin still hasn't actually committed to the meeting. With me now, former State Department spokesman and senior advisor to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Ned Price. Glad you're here. First of all, what's behind the non-committal reasons for Russia? Will they actually have a summit?

NED PRICE, FORMER SENIOR OFFICIAL AT CIA, FORMER SPOKESMAN FOR U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT: So, there are three key questions, and I think one is far more important than the other two: when, where, and if. And there has been so much attention paid to those first two, when and where.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PRICE: Just presupposing, assuming that it's going to take place. I think that if is really the question. You are absolutely right that the Kremlin is being non-committal. They are doing what they do when they don't want to do something.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PRICE: You may recall, it was a few months ago, President Trump put on the table an immediate, unconditional ceasefire, and he posed the question to both Ukraine and to Russia. Ukraine immediately said yes. Russia didn't quite say -- didn't quite say no. They said something like yes, but --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PRICE: -- and it was the but that was important. And I think we're hearing that here, too. They don't want to say no to President Trump because President Putin knows he has a good thing going with President Trump.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PRICE: But they also don't want to commit to it. President Putin wants nothing to do with President Zelenskyy, not because there's any personal animosity between them, of course, there is, it's because he doesn't believe Ukraine has the right to exist as a country. So, then, how could this country that should not exist, how could he have a peer elected by that country's people in the same room with him?

So, I think the Russians are going to try and drag this out, possibly as long as they can. They're going to suggest more rounds of negotiations in Istanbul at lower levels, saying possibly we can work up to a leaders' level. But they're stalling.

COATES: Why Istanbul? What's the -- the where component of it? Why is that equally significant?

PRICE: So, the lower level negotiations from the very earliest days of the war, many of them have taken place in Istanbul. COATES: Uh-hmm.

PRICE: Some of them have taken place in Belarus. Some of them have taken place in Istanbul. There have been meetings elsewhere. But Istanbul has been really a crossroads for these two countries to come together.

COATES: Talk to me about the boots on the ground because, of course, Trump is not committed to having U.S. troops there in one way. But he's talking about air or military assets --

PRICE: Yeah.

COATES: -- and part of security, you know, requirements and guarantees. Is there a likelihood that the U.S. Military could have a significant role here?

PRICE: There's a possibility that U.S. force or the U.S. Military plays a role but --

COATES: Should they?

PRICE: Well, I think we've heard very clearly from President Trump that there not going to be boots on the ground. I think that's the right decision. You might recall that President Biden also had a similar position. We were going to do everything we could to support Ukraine. But President Biden ruled out the introduction of U.S. forces. And I think that was the right decision then. It's the right decision now.

COATES: What about air, military assets?

PRICE: Air is a different question. There are other things that we can do. We can provide intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. We can provide supplies. We can provide air support, air cover if necessary. Hopefully, it doesn't come to that. Hopefully, this is just a monitoring mission and not an actual peacekeeping force.

But there are certain things that the U.S. Military can do. Really, the security guarantees should be the easy part because we're talking about security guarantees with Ukraine and with Europe. This doesn't yet bring in Russia or least it shouldn't bring in Russia just yet.

But we've heard over the past couple days, Russia thinking they have a veto over what these guarantees can look like. They're saying no NATO troops on Ukrainian soil. To me, that's a flashing red light because it makes very clear that President Putin still doesn't believe that Ukraine is a sovereign country, capable and able to make its own decisions.

COATES: But does it also speak to how he views the power or leverage of the American president or European leaders if he is suggesting he has veto power?

PRICE: I -- I think it certainly speaks to the authority he believes he has over Ukraine -- COATES: Uh-hmm.

PRICE: -- which, again, he doesn't believe should be sovereign or independent.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PRICE: And I think perhaps even more concerningly, it speaks to his further intentions when it comes to Ukraine. If he's objecting to NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, you might ask yourself why. Is it because he wants to live in peace with his neighbor after this war ends and no further incursions? Doesn't sound like it. It sounds like he is wary of having NATO troops because he would know that further aggression could lead to a broader conflict with the NATO alliance.

COATES: Do you see the ceding of territory by Ukraine inevitable?

PRICE: Look, everyone would want to see Ukraine go back to its 1991 borders, back to its 2014 borders, back to its 2022 borders. But I think when we're realistic, and even Ukrainians will tell you, albeit very rarely in public, that they acknowledge they are probably going to have to make some very difficult trade-offs here.

But they need to know, and they need the assurances, that the international community, certainly the West, will be there for them, and that's why these security guarantees are going to be so important.

[23:49:58]

Ukraine has been through this before. They have made difficult sacrifices before, and they found themselves burned. They don't want to be on that -- on that singeing end once again.

COATES: We'll see what ultimately happens. Ned Price, thank you.

PRICE: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Up next, the MAGA meltdown over Governor Gavin Newsom's Trumpian tweets. All caps, insults, A.I. It's a lot. But is it working for Newsom? Well, Harry Enten looked into it. He's here to share what he found next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's one thing to borrow a page from your opponent's playbook. It's another to flip the script completely and tear it up in the process. Well, California Governor Gavin Newsom seems to be doing just that, going after Trump by mocking the very way he has become known for posting online.

He started with a barrage of tweets and Trump's signature, all-caps style. But it's not just the caps he's mocking. Look at this post. It says, Donald is finished. He is no longer hot. First the hands (so tiny) and now me -- Gavin C. Newsom -- have taken away his step. Many are saying he can't even do the big stares on Air Force One anymore.

That no longer hot? Clearly referencing Trump's past attacks on Taylor Swift. That truly didn't stop there because then came the A.I.- generated memes. And I mean lots of them. Many of them mirroring the A.I. memes Trump and the White House have posted themselves.

Remember Trump's long live the king? Well, Newsom seems to be challenging him to that throne, donning his very own crown. What about Pope Trump? Newsom posted this bizarre A.I. image that appears to show an angelic Hulk Hogan and Tucker Carlson blessing him. And who can forget the muscular Trump Skywalker? Well, this A.I. version of Jack Gavin would like a word.

Now, Newsom has been taking heat for these posts, including from some Fox News anchors.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANA PERINO, FOX NEWS HOST: You have to stop it with the Twitter thing. I don't know where his wife is. If I were his wife, I would say, what -- you are making a fool of yourself. Stop it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Newsom didn't take her advice. But he did give Dana Perino a Trump-style nickname, writing -- quote -- "Dana 'Ding Dong' Perino (never heard of her until today) is melting down because of me, Gavin C. Newsom! Fox hates that I am America's most favorite governor."

And the giggles you heard earlier are coming from the chief data analyst, Harry Enten, who joins us now. This is a lot, the A.I. images.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: A lot.

COATES: But you know what? It might also happen as well. The key question, has this actually been working for Newsom?

ENTEN: I think -- I think it absolutely has been working in terms of generating attention, which is what he's trying to do, right? I mean, take a look here. Let's take a look right at the @govpressoffice followers on X. That's, of course, where you get those sorts of the account where Newsom posts those Trump-style mocking types of tweets. Get this, that account, get this, up 450% in terms of the number of followers since mid-June.

And it's not just on Twitter, X, where Newsom is gaining. Even on TikTok and Instagram. His followers are up over a million since January alone. My goodness gracious.

And more than that, Laura, more than that. What about Google? What about those Google searches for him? Get this. Daily Google searches for Gavin Newsom, up like a rocket. What are we talking about? Since June 1, up 1300%. Compared to August 1st, look at that, up 500%. So, the bottom line is in politics, especially if you're thinking of entering in 2028, it's all about generating attention. And so far, Gavin Newsom has done a good job at generating attention.

COATES: Do Democrats want it?

ENTEN: Do Democrats want it? Okay, do Democrats want it? This, I think, is the trend line that I think says it all. Democrats want their leaders to what? Try to stop the GOP or work with the GOP? You go back to 2017. You see here, work with the GOP. Took the cake at 74% compared to just 23% who said to try and stop the GOP. But now, I'm going to come over to your side of the screen, Laura.

COATES: Come on.

ENTEN: Look at 2025. I'm coming as close as I can. Fifty-seven percent say they want the Democratic leaders to try and stop the GOP compared to just 42% who say they want to work with the GOP. That is a major shift. What are we talking about here? Some quick math up here. It's 34% rise in terms of the percentage of Democrats who want their leaders to try and stop the GOP.

So, no wonder Gavin Newsom, he's looking at this polling, he's saying, I can generate attention. This is where the Democratic base is. And right now, he seems to be following the democratic base.

COATES: Why? For 2028?

ENTEN: For 2028. That is exactly why. And I think the question is, is it working? Is it working? Well, let's take a look at the betting markets. I think this gives away so much of it.

Okay, the chance of being the 2028 Democratic nominee, according to the prediction markets, look at where we were on June 1st. We basically had a clown car, a clown car for first. Newsom, AOC, Buttigieg. Eleven percent, 10%, 8%.

But look at where we are now. Look at this. Look who has jumped up all the way up to 24% chance, about a one in four chance of getting nomination. Gavin Newsom. AOC staying pretty steady at 13%. And then, of course, we have Pete Buttigieg, who has stayed absolutely steady at 8%.

So, at least at this particular point, the prediction markets are saying, yes, yes, this strategy is paying off. Of course, the key question is, will this actually work when you're trying to actually -- votes are being cast and counted?

[00:00:00]

And more than that, will it work for a general electorate? Well, it's early days yet. We'll have to wait and see. But so far, Gavin Newsom has done a pretty gosh darn good job of generating attention for himself and a pretty gosh darn good shot of getting people on television like you and I to talk about it.

COATES: Well done. Wow. A.I., the new dark horse in politics. Harry Enten, thank you so much.

ENTEN: Thank you.

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