Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Escalates Power Grab With Firing Attempt Of Fed Member; Cracker Barrel Scraps New Logo Amid Backlash; Democrat Wins Iowa State Senate Election; Taylor Swift And Travis Kelce Announce Engagement. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 26, 2025 - 23:00   ET

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

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: And NASA hopes that Starship is ready in time to man astronauts on the moon by 2027. Who's going to be on it? Not me.

Um, thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Tonight, can he fire her or not? Will Trump test his power and escalates his war against the Fed? You know where this is headed, the Supreme Court. So, will they co-sign him? Plus, Democrats on defense as Trump presses them on crime with a new threat to do whatever he wants, wherever, and whenever he wants. And later, Cracker Barrel cracks under pressure. The old logo is going to come back. And guess who's taking credit? Guess! Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Now, tonight is a pretty good night to remember one key thing about President Trump. He has made a career of firing people.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Rob, you're fired.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COATES: He literally built a brand on doing just that. Firing contestants on national television and, of course, you know it, "The Apprentice." And then firing official after official after official after official for his entire first term and now in his second term. That really hasn't changed much either. He or his allies have used their authority to doge and purge soup to nuts.

But in a world where we hear all about the people who serve the pleasure of the president, type of the question is not who he can fire, but maybe who he cannot. You know who will undoubtedly have to answer that question? The United States Supreme Court. Will they check him or write him a blank check? Now, broadly speaking, any case before that court that draws the boundaries or constraints around presidential power is going to be extremely important.

Now, in this case, the answer is especially all the more important because it could decide the fate of the Federal Reserve, the historically independent central bank that decides policy regardless of what pleases the president. Enter Lisa Cook, the embattled Federal Reserve board governor who Trump is trying to fire, I said trying to fire. The reason, allegations of mortgage fraud.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: She seems to have had an infraction, and she can't have an infraction, especially that infraction because she's in charge of, if you think about it, mortgages, and we need people that are 100% above board.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, Cook says that she is gathering information to address any questions about what are, as we speak, allegations. And in the meantime, she's not going anywhere. Her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, says that they're going to court to make quite sure of that. Quote -- "President Trump has no authority to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. His attempt to fire her, based solely on a referral letter, lacks any factual or legal basis." I mean, even the finance folks over at CNBC think it's fishy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM CRAMER, CNBC HOST: Well, I -- I think the hard problem here is she hasn't been charged. So, until she's charged, I don't know why the president would go now unless he's really confident she will be charged. And I don't think he knows that. Look, the Federal Reserve, as is, has historically been the best. And one of it is because it's independent. It's very difficult to try to get them -- to get them to do something they shouldn't do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, that something isn't so secret because Trump wants the Fed to cut interest rates. Right? How is he going to do it? Well, you know he has been hammering Chair Jerome Powell and trying to pressure him to resign. And that hasn't worked. Remember how that meeting went?

And so, now, removing Lisa Cook, would that give him the next best thing to be able to install a loyalist who gets to vote on monetary decisions? Is that the end game? We don't know. As you heard, the investigation is not even close to complete as far as we know today.

The only clue that we have on how the Supreme Court may, and I do mean may look at this, comes from a decision that came back in May. And in that decision, the court allowed Trump to fire leaders of two federal boards. But they went out of their way to mention that the Fed is actually different.

[23:04:57]

Quoting from the decision now, they write, "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the first and second banks of the United States."

So, will that precedent mean something in this? Will they stick by that? Now, my lead guest is just the right person to ask. We need a law professor. We're turning to Kim Wehle, who's from University of Baltimore, also a former assistant U.S. attorney during the Clinton administration. Kim, good to see you, my friend. Look, based on what we know today, tell me, does the president of the United States have legal standing to fire this Fed governor, Lisa Cook?

KIM WEHLE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW: Under the statute that governs the Federal Reserve, he can only do it for cause, which generally means malfeasance or doing something wrong in office. This has to do with, I think, four years before she even took office. And the authority for Congress's power to restrain his ability to fire her for any reason goes back 90 years.

But, as you said, Laura, the court in these emergency petitions, on an emergency basis with these other two agencies, basically kind of gave that old -- that old case the back of the hand, and then tried to distinguish the Federal Reserve because people are worried about monetary policy.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WEHLE: It affects a lot of people. And Justice Kagan, in her dissent, said, listen, there's not really a good difference when it comes to the constitutional law between the Federal Reserve Board or the chair and the, uh, NLRB or the MSPB.

So, you know, I don't think it's really a very intellectually coherent distinction. So, we'd have to see if -- if they're going to stick with that line you just read or if they're going to once again --

COATES: Yeah.

WEHLE: -- green light what Donald Trump is doing.

COATES: You know, the idea for cause, it sounds like it's very specific, but there is vagueness in that. There's always a way to sort of maneuver some way to talk about what for cause can mean. Is it so vague as to defer the president of the United States or is it so specific as to set up guardrails?

But the Supreme Court, as you know, has signaled its willingness to expand the president's power over independent federal agencies. As you say, they did draw a line around the Fed. But it is an open question in the Supreme Court. We don't yet know what they would do in this circumstance.

Given the composition of the court and given what appears to be a greater affinity to overturning precedent than I've ever seen in my lifetime, who do you see the justices siding with?

WEHLE: Well, I think they'll probably go with Trump because there's this animating theory. It's a theory. It's not in the Constitution, really, what's called the unitary executive theory that is very -- this conservative idea that the president has complete control over everyone within the executive branch.

But, you know, even setting that aside, Laura, you know, it's how she's going to stay in the job in the interim if he fires her, that's the problem. I mean, so say this goes to the court in, you know, a year or something, she'll already be out of office.

So, I think Trump understands. He just does what he wants and doesn't ask forgiveness or permission, knowing that by the court -- by the time the courts catch up with him, if they decide to go out on a limb and not back him, you know, the damage is already done.

COATES: The delay tactics in litigation has served then civilian Donald Trump very well. And in litigation more broadly for most people, especially in Corporate America, that delay tactic can work to allow you -- for you to resolve a number of things.

But there's also the arena in the criminal context. Let's go sort of a second to that side, Kim, because I am, you know, a former prosecutor here in Washington, D.C. as you, of course, know quite well.

We know the president is calling for the death penalty for anyone charged with killing someone in Washington, D.C. Now, the president's history of calling for capital punishment, it dates back to his Central Park Five full-page ad in the 1980s in terms -- in terms of what he believed to be appropriate then. We, of course, know circumstances would really happen there. But practically speaking, the difficulty in trying to seek capital punishment in D.C. is what?

WEHLE: D.C., the District of Columbia, the local law -- laws banned capital punishment back in 1980s. So, you know -- as you know, Laura, regular murder is not charged at the federal level.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WEHLE: It's charged at the state or local level. So, there's no law that allows a death penalty for local murders. So, he can -- he -- he can say that, but, you know, no judge is going to impanel a jury to consider a death penalty when there's no law authorizing a death penalty.

[23:09:58]

Now, there is federal law that was expanded tremendously to allow certain death penalties-type crimes, including kinds of murders, like if you murder a diplomat or if you -- if you do murder someone on -- on federal property. But that has been on the books for quite a while.

So, you know, I think this is a distraction, Laura. He doesn't have any authority to do anything new here except if Pam Bondi, his attorney general, or, you know, Jeanine Pirro, the current U.S. attorney, they identify someone who falls within the preexisting federal law that would trigger a federal death penalty case and has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that would persuade a jury, then they can bring that. But so could Joe Biden. You know, that this isn't really -- I think this is kind of getting people probably afraid of something. That still requires facts and law. Nothing has really changed.

COATES: So, quickly, for people who may not understand, the District of Columbia, not a state. People finance and arms with federal property. How the federal exception not always apply to local murder here?

WEHLE: Well, there are 60 different crimes that carry the federal death penalty. I'm sure it's a -- it's a District of Columbia. And there are certain buildings that are federal.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WEHLE: But, you know, people live in houses. There are regular streets. It -- it functions like a state. It functions like a regular city except for the fact that you'll cross the border boundaries on to, you know, the Smithsonian. You're on federal property. And it's not just that that would trigger a death penalty federal murder case. There are others. But, you -- you know, they're going to have to thread that needle --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WEHLE: -- and get within that federal crime or convince Congress to expand the definition of murder for purposes of the District of Columbia. I -- you know, this is -- like I said, I think he -- you know, they can try to bring more cases. But, as you know --

COATES: Yeah.

WEHLE: -- they still have to have the facts of the law behind them.

COATES: They do. Yet another question for Congress, it seems. Kim, thank you so much.

WEHLE: Great to be with you.

COATES: Well, here's a question that we need to know the answer to, and it comes fresh from "The Wall Street Journal" editorial board tonight. What if Trump runs the Federal Reserve? They say he may succeed, but the country will live to regret it. But what is the question to that -- the answer to that question of what if he does run the Federal Reserve or tries to do so?

Let's bring in the senior columnist at Yahoo! Finance, Rick Newman, to help us unpack and try to answer that very question. Hi, Rick. We're turning your wave right to you.

Look, you saw probably today that markets took a brief nosedive back in July, July 16, after a series of reports that indicated the president may fire the Fed chair, Jerome Powell. Now, they then bounced back once he publicly downplayed his intentions to remove Powell. Then, notably, markets actually -- they rose today after Trump's push to fire the Federal governor, Lisa Cook. So, why do you think his pressure on the Fed is not rallying markets this time? Is this kind of a president who cried wolf scenario?

RICK NEWMAN, SENIOR COLUMNIST, YAHOO! FINANCE: No, I wouldn't say -- I wouldn't put it that way. So, there are many things that push the stock market up and down, and this is part of the noise that investors have to digest, whether they try to figure out -- whether to buy or sell. So, I can tell you that among investors, there's a lot of steam blowing out of people's ears right now at the prospect that Fed -- that Trump may get some sort of control over the Federal Reserve.

But this is really important. He does not yet have control of the Federal Reserve. And what's happening now is there's a lot of analysis happening on Wall Street and in the investor community along the lines of what would it actually take for Trump to get control of the Federal Reserve.

And it's complicated. It actually goes all the way into February of next year when there are some internal elections at the Federal Reserve. It's technical. We'll have plenty of time to talk about it during the next several months.

But for the moment, as you were saying earlier, Trump has not actually tried to fire Lisa Cook. He has just said that he will try to fire her. He has tried the same thing with Jerome Powell. He said that many times. He's considering firing Jerome Powell, but he has not yet actually tried to fire Jerome Powell. So, for now, Lisa Cook remains on the -- the 12-person committee that sets interest rates and the Federal Reserve composition is still the same as it was before this Trump threat.

So, now, I think everybody is waiting to see. Is Trump actually going to go through with it? I think there's widespread belief that this is a trial balloon. Trump wants to see market reaction. He wants to see what kind of legal reaction he gets. Should he actually go through with this? We don't know the answer to that.

So, for now, investors are extremely aware of what's going on, but -- but there are other things driving the market for the moment.

COATES: Well, Federal Chairman Powell, he seems to be hinting that a long awaited, at least if you're Trump, an interest rate cut might be on the table as early as next month, and he's talking about rising risks in the labor market.

[23:15:07]

Now, the lowering of rates, as you know, President Trump has been persistently lobbying for. Why would there be the move now potentially to lower it? What has changed if you're Powell?

NEWMAN: So, if you take all of Trump's threats out of it and just assume that Trump has never said a single word about trying to get the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, it would make sense, based on what we've seen in the economy, that the Fed would be willing to start moving toward gradually cutting interest rates.

Now, there's a huge difference between what Powell suggested the Fed might be willing to start doing in September and what Trump actually wants the Fed to do. Trump wants the Federal Reserve to cut short-term interest rates by two to three percentage points immediately. He just wanted them to do it right away. The Fed never does that except during an emergency, an economic emergency. We're not in economic emergency.

So, if the Fed does start cutting interest rates, it's going to cut interest rates by one quarter of a percentage point, and then it might do it by another quarter of a percentage point the following, you know, month or the month after that. So, this is -- even if the Fed does start cutting interest rates, it's not going to be what Trump wants because Trump wants them to slash interest rates. There's a huge difference.

So, what Powell said or indicated that the Fed might do, that's justifiable by what's actually happening in the economy. We are -- we are seeing a slowdown in the labor market. That would be the main reason the Fed cuts in rates. So, at the moment, it does not appear to investors that Trump's pressure campaign on the Fed is actually getting the Fed to change anything that -- or do something that it wouldn't otherwise do.

Now, we're all watching. Is that going change during the next several months, especially with regard to how this Lisa Cook situation evolves?

COATES: We will have to wait and see, at least for tonight. Rick, thank you.

NEWMAN: See you.

COATES: Breaking tonight, FEMA punishes staff who signed a letter openly criticizing the president as the administration cracks down on critics takes a new turn. Olivia Troye, who has spoken out against the president, standing by in studio with her perspective next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: If President Trump's claim of mortgage fraud against Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook sounds familiar, it's because he has used this kind of playbook before in his perceived political enemies. He has accused New York Attorney General Tish James and California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of mortgage fraud. Both deny any wrongdoing just like Cook, of course, does as well.

And Trump was asked about his motivation here. Was he just digging around for dirt against people he doesn't like?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: No. They're public. I mean, you can find out those records. You can go check out the records yourself. And you should be doing that job. Actually, you wouldn't do that because that's not the kind of reporter you are. But you should be doing that job. I shouldn't have to be doing it. If you did your job properly, we wouldn't have problems like Lisa Cook.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, Trump says it's the attribution at all. But just ask vocal critics like John Bolton. The FBI searched his home last Friday as they relaunched an investigation into whether he revealed classified information for his 2020 book. And that hasn't stopped Bolton from calling out Trump publicly because just today, he called Trump's Ukraine policy incoherent in an op-ed for the Washington Examiner.

With me now, former homeland security and counterterrorism adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, Olivia Troye, who has been a frequent outspoken critic of the -- of the president as well.

Olivia, it's good to see you. Now, you've, of course, heard the president saying he's not weaponizing or retribution or anything like that. But when you see what happened to Bolton and others, can you believe him?

OLIVIA TROYE, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY AND COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: No. I think he's absolutely doing what he said he would do. He ran on a campaign of retribution, and I think we're seeing it come to fruition now. I mean, what happened to Bolton, he was a critic. He was talking about his feelings on Putin and Ukraine, which I agree with Bolton. I've been out there criticizing what happened in this summit in Alaska and everything.

But I think this is all par for the course in the plan. And I think when we see what's happening at Bolton, I think, you know, there has been executive orders on Miles Taylor, Chris Krebs. There has been a lot of these things that have been public propaganda, so to speak, from the White House. But I think on Friday, that was really truly crossing the line.

COATES: It must be hard not to feel anxious given the fact that you have been an outspoken critic as many others have as well. You've spoken out about the danger, the extremism aspect of it. What is life like for somebody who has criticized Trump today?

TROYE: I mean, you -- I -- I certainly think about, well, am I next? You know, am I the next person that they're going to knock on the door on? What does that look like for me and my family? What do I need to prepare for that situation? Watching it unfold on Friday, I was horrified for John Bolton and his family trying to figure out what was happening.

And I was concerned because I think it's also -- it sends a sign in a chilling effect. Right? It is really about silencing critics. It is a sort of an effect of, well, am I next? What's going to happen? And I think for people that are watching, too, what does it mean for them? I mean, you know, Friday, it was John Bolton.

And you may not agree with politics or foreign policy, but tomorrow, it could be a journalist, it could be you, it could be me, it could be actually any American citizen or person out there who criticizes the president.

[23:25:00]

That is why this is so dangerous. I think this is very authoritarian- like. It's something that I warned about. And it is horrible to watch it play out. I mean, this is something -- you know, I went to Kash Patel's confirmation hearing with Judge William Webster, who recently passed. And the reason we were there in person is because we were concerned that the bureau would be used in such a manner that would be a political vengeance for us for Donald Trump. And Friday showed that that is the direction that this is going in.

COATES: It doesn't end with discussions about critics who are vocal, who are on television and beyond. There have been those even -- we're learning that there are 180 FEMA officials that sent to Congress a letter that warned the agency is being gutted and could be very ill- prepared in the future for a natural disaster. And some of those staffers who signed that letter have been placed on leave now.

What is the harm and risk that is coming if there is a chilling effect even in that degree to issues outside of politics like natural disasters?

TROYE: Yeah. I have been very concerned about what we're seeing in our public service ranks. I'm concerned about what they're doing to the intelligence community. They're revoking clearances. They're firing people. They just fired the head of the department -- Defense Intelligence Agency, which I served under along the way for his assessment -- listed assessments on the Iranian strikes. Right? And Trump didn't like that.

So, now, we have FEMA staffers warning. And the thing is what they're warning about are things that are going to affect all Americans regardless of your politics. They're warning that they're concerned that we could have a Katrina-like disaster again because we're unprepared. We don't have the resources. The agency is being gutted. And resources are being pulled away to other distractions, either it's the border or other things.

And so, what they're saying is, we are concerned that there was going to be a natural disaster and we are regressing back to what happened in Hurricane Katrina. I was there on the ground in the aftermath, and I can tell you that the destruction of what happened there was horrific, and that was part of the reason that there was a lot of work in the aftermath to make sure that we wouldn't go back to that again.

COATES: We have a series on CNN talking about the 20 years since Hurricane Katrina.

TROYE: Yes. COATES: Really profound to remember those moments. FEMA did release a statement, saying -- quote -- "It is not surprising that some of the same bureaucrats who presided over decades of inefficiency are now objecting to reform. Change is always hard. It is especially for those invested in the status quo, who have forgotten that their duty is to the American people not entrenched bureaucracy" -- unquote.

Olivia, thank you.

Well, that didn't take long. Remember Cracker Barrel's new logo? Well, forget about it. These are not some of changing their logo back to the old timer tonight. Did I mention just a few hours after President Trump told them to? I'll break it all down after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: If you've been following this internet saga, you're probably having some real whiplash tonight, because in just one week, the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel's logo went from this to this, dropping that signature old timer and his barrel. But the internet which, by the way, remains undefeated, missed that old man and would not let him get off that porch.

The backlash and the uproar online grew so loud that tonight, the company is hitting rewind on that rebrand, bringing us back to, well, barrel one. Cracker Barrel issuing this statement, reading -- quote -- "We thank our guests for sharing your voices and love for Cracker Barrel. We said we would listen, and we have."

You know, let's call it love the internet was giving you. But how did we get here? Well, some said the new logo was too corporate. Others said it was too woke, including the White House, who was celebrating the move tonight by posting "go woke, go broke," and replacing the old timer with a cartoon Trump.

The president even congratulated Cracker Barrel for the move. And now, some Democrats are weighing in as well. California Governor Gavin Newsom is mocking Trump's post, writing, "A massive win, patriots. All because of me, Gavin C. Newsom. Congratulations."

And while he may be trolling here, and he is, tonight, the White House seems to be taking credit for real. Just hours ago, a deputy White House chief of staff said there was a phone call between Cracker Barrel and the White House, adding they wanted the president to know that they heard him.

Joining me now is Marcus Collins, a professor of marketing at the University of Michigan, also the author of "For the Culture." Marcus, welcome. Why do you think this rebrand interested anyone, let alone became so controversial?

MARCUS COLLINS, PROFESSOR OF MARKETING, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Because this rebrand wasn't about design nor is it about aesthetics. This is about meaning. Essentially, the change that Cracker Barrel underwent was signaling progress.

And in the cultural climate, the social backdrop in which we are operating, progress means bad, progress means woke, products -- progress means DEI, progress means all the things that are crossing the lines of government, cross all the lines of politics.

And as a result, this -- this change had nothing to do with commerce, nothing to do with the brand and its products, but everything to do with who I am and where I sit on the political line.

COATES: You know, sometimes, companies look at internet discussions and they just sort of say forget it. This time, they did not.

[23:35:00]

They really caved, reverted back the real brand -- the other brand. Were they too quick to do so?

COLLINS: Of course. I mean, they changed for a reason. Their business hasn't been doing well for years. They've been having a steady decline year over year until they started making changes back in Q1. Actually, in those first couple of months, they saw a 3% increase in sales. Things were actually working. They signaled that these changes were coming down the pike.

But things are so tense. The -- the temperature is so high. The climate is so piping hot that any signal of progress means woke. We think about every other brand who has changed their logo: Dunkin, Dominos, Spotify, Pinterest, Airbnb. These weren't woke things. But woke, which doesn't mean anything these days, good night. That's another story for another day.

(LAUGHTER)

These things are just signaling ways by which people can draw the line in the sand to say, I'm here, I'm there. And what we're really missing in all of this is just empathy, a meaning that we can see the world differently and, therefore, combine the aperture on what reality is.

COATES: So, with marketing, is the calculus always going to be how this might be viewed through a political lens? Is that the new calculus for Corporate America?

COLLINS: Well, you're always thinking about the cultural backdrop because you're not releasing new products or new branding efforts in a vacuum. Right? Everything you do is being calculated, it's being translated, it's being interpreted through the meme making lenses of people who are taking in everything that's happening in their life.

So, as a new thing enters the zeitgeist, it's being evaluated based on all the other things that's going on in the world. So, unfortunately, the political times we're in, the cultural climate we're sitting in, everything is going to be looked at through this lens. And for a brand like Cracker Barrel, you have to ask yourself, what do you believe? How do you see the world? And is it worth it? They made these changes for a reason. Their business wasn't doing well.

COATES: Hmm.

COLLINS: Going back to the old logo isn't going to change their business. Those people who are pointing their fingers, saying, this is bad, they're not showing up tomorrow.

COATES: By the way, none of this was probably free. They had consultants. They had to go through all, through the focus groups, all the things that Corporate America has to do before they implement. You think the bureaucracy is slow? Welcome to Corporate America. Marcus, thank you so much.

COLLINS: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Well, you know, Democrats are huddling in my hometown. They're in Minneapolis right now. But they're not there for the cheese curds at the state fair. Nope. They are trying to hammer out what they stand for. But from what we're hearing, they can't get on the same page even in the Twin Cities. That's next. And later, the news that has people shouting from the rooftops. I -- I do mean literally shouting from a rooftop.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Taylor Swift is engaged! She's engaged! She's engaged!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking news, a victory for Democrats in the heartland and a possible sign of what's to come in the midterms. CNN projects that Democrat Catelin Drey will win a state Senate special election in Iowa. She won a district that Trump won by 12 points back in November.

Her win flips the seats from Democrats, and it breaks the GOP's supermajority in the Iowa Senate. Victory comes as Democrats gather in my hometown to plot their way forward. But party leaders have one message for the rank and file, no more knives out for each other.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): But we're not joining that 'we suck' club. We're not getting sucked into it when they try to divide us on every single issue online because we have a more important job to do.

KEN MARTIN, CHAIRMAN, DNC: They think they can change things by winning arguments. You know what winning the argument gets you? Maybe a nice round of applause and a few likes on Instagram. But the reality is it doesn't make life any better for any person. We have to stop for settling on winning the arguments with each other. We have to win elections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, former Pennsylvania congressman and Democratic Senate candidate, Conor Lamb. Thank you for being here. Well, you -- you just heard Democratic leaders say the party should not be engaged in infighting, they should be fighting Republicans instead and, of course, trying to win. Do you think that voters believe the issue as to why Democrats are not majority is because of infighting or the lack of fighters?

CONOR LAMB, FORMER PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE, ATTORNEY FOR KLINE & SPECTER: It's probably closer to the latter. Yeah. I mean, when -- when I was out there on the road last year for the ticket a little bit, talking to people who were kind of unsure, it was like they just didn't know what we stood for. It wasn't so much that they had a misperception of Democrats. They thought we were kind of weak-willed and, you know, fuzzy.

And so, I -- I think that it's important for party leaders to try to keep everybody together. But, like, there's real work that we need the DNC to do, especially registering voters, which we're getting beat at really bad right now. I just wish more of their message right now was about the actual work that they're doing.

COATES: What work should be done aside from registration? You got to convince them to actually go to the polls and vote for a Democrat as well. If there is a perception a year ago that Democrats aren't doing enough, has anything changed significantly to make them think differently?

LAMB: I -- I do think, based on the individual Democratic candidate or leader, there are people out there doing a great job. What I think those speeches you just showed are trying to convey is that we're all part of a team.

[23:45:00]

And on a team, not everybody plays the same role. I don't really see the role of the DNC as being about fighting with each other over policy issues, try and get attention. I think they're really supposed to do the blocking and tackling of things like registration and turnout that help us at election time. And -- and, by the way, that -- that is part of the story of why we lost last year, you know, beyond the issues themselves.

So, I think you leave it to the -- the people that are actually running campaigns and talking to voters face-to-face every day to lead on the issues. A group like the DNC, I just think, has to have a more concrete idea of what its shot is.

COATES: Well, that's the DNC. How about the role of governors? Go to California with me for a second because he is out. He's drawing a lot of attention for his messaging tactics. He has been trolling Trump on social media. As you know, not everyone is on board with that. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: You know, everybody likes a good laugh. And now, he's about to, I guess, issue his own cup and golden tennis shoes. And who knows what else? These are serious times that require serious people to be at the table.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: We've heard that before. But do you think Governor Newsom's tactic is a winning strategy?

LAMB: I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it a strategy, but, you know, a tactic might be a -- a better term, as sort of a -- a short term tool that he's using to try to just break people out of the spell that Trump puts them in. You know? And it's not the kind of thing that I would do.

But he has an actual story to tell about his state and the way the policies are so different from Trump and the things that he thinks have succeeded, especially economically for people. And if something like this in the short term gets people to just hear an alternative to Trump, who dominates so much of the story every day, I think it's promising. And he's also -- he's showing some spine. Whether you like it or not, he's showing some toughness, and people are looking for that right now.

COATES: Who do you think is spellbound by Trump more? Democrats or Republican voters?

LAMB: Well, I -- I think that even if they don't agree with him a 100%, there's a lot of people sort of out there in the middle who are not all that partisan one way or the other who just end up hearing Trump's version of the story more. So, they may not be spelled out in the sense that they're in love with him, but they end up living inside his narrative.

And I think one of the things that Newsom did here effectively was interrupt that narrative. And all of a sudden, because he's using the same tactics, you're looking at someone with such a different story to tell. And I think he did succeed in at least interrupting what Trump has been trying to do.

COATES: Do you want to hear that interruption more from state governors or from members of Congress and leadership within it?

LAMB: I think that it depends on what they're trying to accomplish and the issue. So, you know, if -- if Gavin Newsom is just doing this to run for president in 2028, you know, I -- I think the self-serving side of it is going to come through pretty quickly.

But if you think about some other of the big moments, like, I'm thinking today about Senator Van Hollen when he went down to El Salvador. A lot of people criticized him for that. But I don't think he's running for president. I think he was just trying to fight for a person that was his constituent, and the genuineness kind of shown through.

And so that's what I mean about there are some real success stories in our party where people are kind of leading with their heart, showing some fight and courage on, like, a real issue that anybody can relate to and understand, not just something that a consultant told them to do.

COATES: Do you find that it's the fight that will win over voters or the substance of the argument?

LAMB: I think they have to be joined because what -- what I perceived talking to people who might have voted for Biden the first time but not the second time was that -- I think they actually agree with us on -- on at least many issues, things having to do with health care or just sort of taxes for -- on the rich or whatever. But they just have kind of stopped believing at a certain point that the Democrats were going actually do it if they were in power.

And so, when we talk about, you know, holding Trump accountable for throwing millions of people off their health insurance and like here in Pennsylvania, it's going to make health insurance more expensive even for the people that don't get thrown off. I think that -- just reciting that has to be combined with some sense of --

COATES: Hmm.

LAMB: -- real conviction about what we're going to do differently.

COATES: We shall see what unfolds. Conor Lamb, thank you for joining.

LAMB: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Up next, you know I was going to get to it. It's a love story, and they just said yes. A top Swifty influencer joins me to break down the big engagement announcement that everyone is talking about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COATES: Well, you best believe she's bejeweled, everyone. Taylor Swift announcing that she and Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce are end game, posting their engagement on Instagram today with the caption, "Your English teacher and your gym teacher are getting married." And yes, it broke the internet. Her post is up to 21 million likes and broke the record for the most repost on Instagram. With a million broke reposts in less than six hours, people.

{23:55:00]

Everyone had a reaction to Swifties, the sports world, and even the president of the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Taylor Swift is engaged! She's engaged! She's engaged!

UNKNOWN: Mother gets engaged. Travis Kelce. So happy for her. She deserves the world. And -- and love wins.

UNKNOWN: I don't know nothing.

(LAUGHTER)

I just got told 30 seconds ago. So, I don't even know if they know. So -- but, you know, that's awesome. You know, I'm so happy for them. Trav, Taylor.

TRUMP: Well, I wish him a lot a lot.

(LAUGHTER)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Taylor Swift is engaged.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): With, like, a new record or --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): She is engaged to be -- she's going to get married.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: A new record or the biggest pop star in the world and a Super Bowl winning football player? This is really shaping up to be -- some are calling it America's version of a royal wedding.

Joining me now to discuss is social media influencer Olivia Levin. She runs the Instagram account at Swifties for Eternity. Well, Olivia, you are so tuned in to the Swiftie community. We know that Taylor is very intentional. She loves her Easter eggs. So, let -- help me break down this post. Is the caption hinting to a song? What's the backdrop? Describe it.

OLIVIA LEVIN, INFLUENCER SPECIALIZING IN ALL THINGS TAYLOR SWIFT: Well, first of all, thank you for having me. So, let's start with the caption. I mean, that's a direct reference to her song, "So High School." Many memes have been circulating since -- for a while of Taylor being the so-called English teacher of a school and Travis Kelce being the gym teacher. So, clearly, she's in tune with what's being discussed on social media, and she's in on the joke.

COATES: And that backdrop?

LEVIN: What was that?

COATES: And that backdrop we see from the engagement scene?

LEVIN: Oh, my gosh! It was -- it was so beautiful. And the secret garden, it -- it seems like it's almost a direct reference to her song, "I Hate It Here," where she talks about the secret garden in her mind that she escapes to, where everything is great in her mind.

And Travis Kelce, he seems like he listens because he turned their backyard into the secret garden. And her mind only made it a place in -- in real life and -- and a place that looks just absolutely amazing.

COATES: I mean, he joked in his own podcast about how watching her Eras Tour, he knows exactly what she's looking for and wants. And clearly, this might just be that. But his father spoke to CNN affiliate, WEWS, and he told them that Travis got down on one knee nearly two weeks ago. Are you surprised they keep it a secret for this long?

LEVIN: I'm honestly more surprised of the way they shared it with the world. I think it's such a gift for -- for both of their fandoms to -- for them to have shared it with us. I personally didn't expect it to be shared like that.

She -- she definitely didn't have to do that because, you know, God knows with what she has been through in the media and being judged constantly by the world. She has every right to keep that part of her life private. And I think that he makes her feel as normal as possible and -- and, like, she doesn't really want to hide as much as she did for a long time.

So, I think it's beautiful that she wanted to share that with all her fans and kind of make it like a happily ever after moment for everybody because, you know, we've all been on this nearly two-decade journey with her, listening to her music, resonating with -- with everything she talks about in her songs, surrounding love and relationships and the hardships. We all go through it in life, and we all want that happily ever after.

So, I think just seeing her have it gives us all hope for ourselves. And also, just because she has been so vulnerable in her music, it allows us to feel that depth and happiness for her. So, I think we're just so excited and so grateful that we were able to see a glimpse into their life today.

COATES: We wonder, of course, will we see the same thing through the wedding details? Will we -- will it be more public? Who knows? Everyone is waiting to hear about that. We've got some more details from Mr. Kelce. He says that they got engaged before dinner at a garden in Lee's Summit, Missouri, saying he got her out there, they're about to go to dinner, and he said, let's go out and have a glass of wine. They got out there, and that's when he asked her, and it was beautiful. He says they FaceTime afterwards. This all sounds, as you said, so normal. Is that what you expect from what's the word? Tavis? LEVIN: Yeah, Tavis. They also go as -- they're known as TNT. Taylor always wears her TNT bracelet that Travis got -- got her in -- at Stanford, Travis and Taylor. And yeah, I think -- I think the way he -- he did it is so -- so beautiful and romantic. And, honestly, you know, she -- she has seen so much of the world.

[23:59:57]

So, in a way, how poetic is it that -- that he would do it in their safe space? So, I -- I love that he -- he set up the backyard like that. You know, rumors are swirling that it happened on the day they aired the -- they filmed the "New Heights" podcast. So, apparently, it could have been set up while the podcast was being filmed. And during the podcast, Travis actually says, we're going to go back -- out back after this, referring to the backyard.

So, that -- from -- from that and, you know, the Swifties are detectives. We -- we're pretty good at figuring out time frames. And then with Ed Kelce, who gave us a little bit of an idea of the time frame as well, it seems that that could have been the case.

COATES: Well, keep up the detective work. I'm sure everyone wants to know. Olivia, thank you.

LEVIN: Thank you so much.

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