Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Federal Appeals Court: Most Trump Tariffs Are Illegal; Embattled Fed Gov's Fate In Limbo As Judge Weighs Ruling; Sources: Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst Won't Seek Reelection; CDC In Chaos As Trump Admin Calls RFK Jr. "Crown Jewel"; Search Warrant Details Revealed As Gov. Walz Eyes Major Move. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 29, 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]

NIKKI SCOTT, CHEF: I let it -- I cooked it yesterday, let it chill, and then tossed it in, uh, seasoned butter sauce.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Oh, you cooked it yesterday.

UNKNOWN: Yeah. So, I did it like cocktail shrimp style.

PHILLIP: That is a good pro tip. Chef Nikki, thank you so much.

VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Thank you.

SCOTT: Yeah. No problem.

JONES: We can eat all of these.

PHILLIP: Yeah, I know. We are about to dig in. Everyone, thank you very much for being here. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." Don't forget that we've got our weekend conversation show tomorrow morning. That's "Table for Five." It's at 10 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: A Friday night smackdown over President Trump's tariffs, a high-stakes fight to decide the future of the Fed, and the sudden glimmer of hope the Democrats are holding on to with both hands in Iowa. All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, it's Friday night in the second Trump administration term which, of course, means we have some major legal dramas unfolding. In fact, I bring you a doubleheader tonight. Two cases with some pretty high stakes. Both of them could have consequences for your bank accounts, your jobs, frankly, the entire U.S. economy. And both of them will test just how much power the president of the United States actually has.

Let's start with Trump's Liberation Day tariffs. A federal appeals court ruled seven to four. That most of them are not legal. Quote -- "Tariffs are a tax." And absent a valid delegation by Congress, the president has no authority to impose taxes. In other words, stay in your separation of powers lane. Forget about trying to use the emergency powers law to get around Congress because that's not happening. They think.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves here or the court because the tariffs are actually still in effect. And does anyone think this is not going to the Supreme Court? The attorney general already said they're going to appeal.

And President Donald Trump, I think he thinks he's going to win, because in true fashion, he wrote, if allowed to stand, this decision would literally destroy the United States of America. Adding to that hyperbole, for many years, tariffs were allowed to be used against us. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our nation.

Now, that's pretty bold, even in times we're in, to assume winning before the Supreme Court would be a foregone conclusion.

The other big case I mentioned is one that could impact the Federal Reserve, the historically-independent body that decides monetary policy like interest rates, rates that Trump wants cut and cut fast. So, the big picture here is whether or not that board remains independent.

And that hinges perhaps on this woman's fate, Lisa Cook. She is the Fed governor that Trump is trying to fire over mortgage fraud allegations. Today, her attorney was in court trying to convince the judge that she should keep her job, arguing that the allegations are not enough to warrant removal. And there's some pretty big suspense here because the judge has not decided to rule quite yet.

But there is a through line here, because in both of these issues, the core questions seem to be about whether the president, Donald Trump, is exceeding his authority. The tariffs? Skip right past Congress. Lisa Cook didn't even let the investigation into her end before deciding she should be removed.

Leading us off today is our favorite legal reporter, Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief and co-founder of All Rise News. Adam, good to see you. It's Friday, which means the law and these cases are about both of them, frankly, presidential powers, what the president can do, what the president can't do, and when you defer to the executive. Now, in the Lisa Cook case, does the judge appear more willing to defer to the president or is the judge questioning that power?

ADAM KLASFELD, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND CO-FOUNDER, ALL RISE NEWS: The judge is absolutely questioning that power, and she had two hours of questions. I would say that she's being very meticulous because she remarked at one point that if she were to, uh, take the side of Lisa Cook's attorney and say that the Trump definition of a cause here is way too expansive and that certain steps are taking, how does she avoid getting, in her words, smackdown from the appeals court?

She knows that this is going to go up on appeal and that this is, like in the tariff's case, a case of first impression because it's -- another through line between these two cases --

COATES: Uh-hmm. KLASFELD: -- is that they're unprecedented uses of presidential power.

COATES: Let's talk about the word cause because it is the core of this entire argument, right?

[23:05:00]

The judge is focused on this precise definition and how the government interprets it. So, tell us why this is so important because, of course, in order to fire, they have to have cause to do so, actual cause, and that is not clearly defined, right?

KLASFELD: It isn't. And that's the key question brought by Abbe Lowell who represents Lisa Cook is, does cause mean anything or does is it just a magic word that Trump can incant, and once he says it, he's in the clear to intrude on the independence of the Federal Reserve? Um, and that was the centerpiece of Abbe Lowell's argument. If it means anything that you -- the judge doesn't need to come up with a full system. She just needs to declare what it isn't.

COATES: And due process has been defined time and time again, notice, opportunity to be heard. And so, the presumption of innocence for allegations must factor in. This is kind of uncharted territory. But what else is new in the last several years?

Adam, I want to turn to what's going on in the appeals court because there is an appeals court ruling that Trump does not have the authority to impose his sweeping tariffs, but they stay in effect while Trump appeals. And he, of course, will be appealing.

And the majority pointed out that this 1977 law that Trump is using to justify these tariffs -- quote -- "does not use the word 'tariffs' or 'duties.' nor any similar terms like 'customs,' 'taxes,' or 'imposts.'"

So, this is a case again where the words are going to matter in the legislation and what's being used, but also where the judges think the president doesn't have unilateral power. But when he appeals, and they will, will the Supreme Court see it the same way?

KLASFELD: We'll see. What we had here was the lower court, the court of international trade being three-zero. We have a strong seven-four ruling here. So -- and, as you just showed on the screen, Laura, these words don't appear in the 1977 statute that he's using to justify this. So, there are two levels of court saying that the law is clear. We'll see if the Supreme Court sees it the same way.

COATES: Oh, fear not. The Supreme Court honors all precedent.

(LAUGHTER)

Note my sarcasm this evening. Adam, thank you so much. I want to continue the conversation with defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, Shan Wu, Tennessee State Representative Aftyn Behn, and Bryan Lanza, former senior adviser to the Trump 2024 campaign. Good to have all of you here. And, of course, I mean, I'm being facetious when I talk about precedent, but stranger things have happened recently. I want to wonder from you, Shan. The Supreme Court seems to be kind of open to expanding the power of the executive branch. There's this floating unitary theory of, you know, kind of, I say it's good to be the king philosophy of things. Will they embrace the deference to Trump here? Would they say, look, do what you want?

SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think the Trump administration is going to be pretty happy with anything in front of the Supreme Court any time they have an issue where it could expand presidential power.

COATES: But why are we so sure about that?

WU: Well, because they gave him all that immunity. That's what I think. And it's an old conservative idea that the president is being too constrained here and the executive needs to sort of move back into the spotlight here on the tariffs issue. I think it's a bit of an uphill climb because it's so obvious that the word doesn't appear in the statute. So, I think that's a little bit of uphill climb for them. And I know that Neal Katyal earlier today in talking about it said that --

COATES: That was the solicitor general of the United States.

WU: Right, exactly, who argued the case, does say that the court, when the law is very clear, can rise above whatever conservative ideology they have. So, we'll see. I'm not that optimistic, but I do think, here, it's pretty clear-cut that the word tariff isn't in that statute. So, that's a hard hill to climb.

COATES: You know, Trump is -- he's -- he's posting on Truth Social, Bryan, that if the tariffs ever went away, and these are his words, it'd be kind of a total disaster for the country. I'm paraphrasing. How much is his agenda though hinge on whatever the Supreme Court rules? Is that (INAUDIBLE) investment?

BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRUMP-VANCE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: No. I think the first immediate problem is, does the court make the decision that he has to -- that they have to return the money? That's what? Nearly $500 million that they almost had to return overnight. I don't think any apparatus exists for that to take place. And now the Trump administration is trying to send out these dividend checks to this residence. So, the money is not actually -- may not even be there.

It is chaotic. You know, $500 million is a big gap to fill if they were to lose, and that becomes very chaotic. But, ultimately, the policy of the president and why tariffs play a role in it is he wanted to expedite the remanufacturing of the United States, and his team felt that they could use tariffs to bring that --

COATES: Uh-hmm. LANZA: -- type of manufacturing back. The goal is still the same. We want to re-industrialize or remanufacture the United States. If it means we can't use tariffs, there's going to be other means to do it. You're going to be able to incentivize business to bring, you know, supply chains out of China because we've made the decision from a policy standpoint that China is not a reliable source for our supply chain.

[23:10:06]

COATES: So, Aftyn, obviously, the word tariffs, not politically-sexy.

AFTYN BEHN, TENNESSEE STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Yes.

COATES: But to voters, to consumers, to business owners, the repercussions and results of tariffs, very important.

BEHN: Yeah.

COATES: Is this where Democrats should be hammering home the point?

BEHN: Absolutely. One, I believe, Trump absolutely overstepped his authority. Two, tariffs were never about protecting American workers. They were about punishing political opponents of President Trump and rewarding allies. And this decision will yield a double devastation in terms of inflation and high tariffs.

COATES: What about Lisa Cook in terms of the presidential maybe overstep? This is what her lawyer is saying, Abbe Lowell, that there was no due process, these are just allegations. There is a hidden agenda which seems people are talking about because if she's gone, he can install somebody else there, and then maybe have a little bit more of a malleable thread to talk about this. Is this going to be a focus on the judge? Because it is kind of uncharted territory here.

WU: Well, it's very uncharted territory. I mean, there's not really good exact case law for what standard defines the cause in this instance. I think the difficulty here is the theme, I think, you see in both the tariffs and with Lisa Cook matter is kind of haste on the part of Trump. Like, he's not willing to wait for anything to play out. Tariffs could have gone to Congress, didn't want to just assert it. Lisa Cook could at least wait. You mentioned wait for the investigation to conclude. It has barely begun.

(LAUGHTER)

He could have waited for there to be some meat to the allegation, not to mention the fact that if you do look at an idea that's got to be malfeasance while she's in office, this was before she was in office, but by moving so quickly, none of this gets played out and it causes that chaos.

COATES: Well, you know, politically, haste is in their favor in terms of Republicans with redistricting, right? Usually, you wait until the census comes out every 10 years, 10 years to do so. Haste worked in their favor to try to get that happening. Is this what Democrats have to respond to, the sort of hasty approach, because they can't maybe get their ducks in the road to respond?

BEHN: I mean, this boils down to Trump wanting to install loyalists, um, who will prioritize his political interests over the economic stability of this country. And Democrats are saying -- they are, you know, yelling quite loud about this, that, um, we do not believe that loyalists should be in these positions. We should have experts that are in charge of our economy.

COATES: Do voters see it the same way, you think? Because you look at the idea of, you know, they want to maintain majority, they want to be able to have in California their own say of who gets to decide the districts. But do you think that the idea of loyalists is the issue for them or that this is just power run amok at this point?

BEHN: President Trump is not talking about lowering grocery taxes. He is not talking about making rent more affordable. He is spending his time stacking the Federal Reserve with his loyalists. And as costs continue to rise, as inflation goes up, that is what voters are concerned about right now.

COATES: Bryan, Missouri is coming into play now as well. They're talking about through their governor maybe redistricting as well. The proposed map would net them, I think, one particular seat as well. Is this the front -- I mean, are they so concerned, Republicans, about losing 2026 that they're going to be hasty in one respect, but also just redistrict their way to office?

LANZA: Yeah. Listen, I think part of the problem, you know, that took place in 2020 when they did the redistricting is, you know, they actually tried to have a process where, you know, the winners didn't go to spoils, right? You know, Texas could clearly do five more seats. Florida can clearly pick up three more seats. Indiana can pick up two. We didn't do that. And I think Trump is of the -- Trump --

COATES: But wait. What's the point you're saying?

LANZA: The point is --

COATES: We're doing it now? Either way --

LANZA: Yeah, absolutely.

COATES: But the question I'm asking though is, is the reason for doing so a real fear for Republicans, that you're going to lose the majority or is there some other thing I'm missing?

LANZA: I think -- I think if we lose the majority, history has shown us that tends to be these wave elections. And so, five to seven seats are not going to sort of stop the wave from taking place. If we lose the majority, you know, next November, not this November, but the following November, it's going be because the economic conditions are so bad that 10 extra seats are not going to able to save us.

COATES: So, the piecemeal approach is trying to add more than 10. Maybe other states against that. Are Democrats concerned about this not just being the states, but more and more to get to a critical mass?

BEHN: Republicans are rigging midterms because their agenda is wildly unpopular. And that is why they are going state to state and threatening Republican governors to do this. And I believe that politicians shouldn't be the one choosing their voters.

COATES: What's your response? Are you rigging election, Republicans?

LANZA: Yeah. This is the process. I mean, gerrymandering has existed for nearly the existence of this country. The Democrats --

COATES: We don't like it, though.

LANZA: I've never complained about it. I actually think to the winners go the spoils. I'm from California where Republicans always lose, and we've lost the spoils. But we see states like Florida, we see states like Texas who can maximize Republican numbers. Let's do it.

[23:15:01]

COATES: You've never complained about gerrymandering?

LANZA: No. I love gerrymandering.

COATES: Really? You love gerrymandering?

LANZA: Absolutely.

COATES: I'm going to get you the t-shirt. You might regret that.

LANZA: I'll wear it.

COATES: You will? You like all gerrymandering?

LANZA: Right now, it serves us.

COATES: Political-based? Wow, this is the -- so, we're talking about a lawyer for a second. You and I have been prosecutors before, and we look at the Constitution and, of course, the Voting Rights Act and other things. Gerrymandering is a horrible thing in terms of the history of it.

Politically speaking, the Supreme Court, though, says that partisan gerrymandering is not as bad as race-based gerrymandering. Looking at -- looking ahead to the future of it, will the Supreme Court continue to revisit this issue given that there is a new-found affinity for it?

WU: Yeah. I mean, I think the problem with Supreme Court is they don't see anything as race-based. And so, therefore, they're not going to find any problems with this.

I completely get what you're saying about why you like it, because it's such a political power move that when you win, you win. But from a legal standpoint, if you think there should be guardrails in place, it's horrible. And really, they should be done away with entirely. At least some states are having, you know, like in California, they're first putting it to the voters if they're going to change the districting situation. And there should be more of that. I mean, it should not be just a complete raw power play, but this is certainly the age for raw power plays.

COATES: Wow! I'm -- I don't know where am I right now. Hold on. I'm trying to find Earth where we hate gerrymandering in the United States of America. I just remember there was a Voting Rights Act. But I'll try to find it in the studio later. It must be gone.

California is coming to mind now. We're talking about California and, of course, Governor Gavin Newsom. He says, of course, that he is deploying state police teams to cities across the state to try to fight crime. Of course, state crime, he says, is dropping across the state as well. Is this going to deter Trump from trying to do what he's doing in Washington, D.C. to California?

LANZA: Isn't that the goal of Gavin Newsom? What he's trying to do is he's trying to give reasons for Trump not to actually deploy the troops by finally enforcing laws, finally increasing?

Listen, the voters of California passed a proposition last election cycle to focus on the small crime, to put these people in jail who've done the shoplifting, who've done the carjackings, who've done these things. Gavin Newsom immediately stopped funding that program. So, he's responsible for the crime increase in California.

And we can say that crimes have gone down, but if we look at what has happened in District of Columbia, we've learned that those crime numbers have been manipulated. So, it wouldn't be surprising.

COATES: He has alleged to be manipulated.

LANZA: Sure.

COATES: There has been an allegation.

LANZA: Yeah.

COATES: I hear what you're saying. But on that point, okay, if crime is the focus and that's the issue, then wouldn't this be in different red states as well? I mean, you've got places like Louisiana. They've got a homicide rate that is four times --

LANZA: Well, let's be clear.

COATES: Hold on. Let me finish.

LANZA: It's New Orleans, not the state. And New Orleans is a Dem-run city.

COATES: Louisiana's homicide rate is four times higher than California. John Berman asked the House speaker, Mike Johnson, who's from the state of Louisiana --

LANZA: Yup.

COATES: -- okay, if he would support sending the the Guard to Shreveport, not New Orleans, but to Shreveport to fight crime. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So, would the Guard help? If the Guard can help in D.C. -- president has said he wants to send the guard to Chicago and other places. Why not Shreveport?

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I don't know. That's not my call.

(CROSSTALK)

BERMAN: Would it be necessary? (ph)

JOHNSON: Well, I don't know. Let's take one city at a time and see. We have to address the crime problem in any city where it is a -- it is a problem like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: One city at a time. Something tells me the list and the priorities are just different. What do you say?

BEHN: I think Governor Newsom's deployment of state police isn't happening in a vacuum. It's a direct result of the overreach of President Trump. And I think President Trump has his interest in nationalizing the Guard, has a lot of governors across this country on edge. The National Guard, like in Tennessee, is to be used to mitigate disasters, to prepare for disasters, the next tornado, the flood, and that's not what's happening right now.

COATES: How do you address voters who say, look, I don't want crime? Whatever will help, fine, I'm fine with?

BEHN: Well, taking the Tennessee National Guard out of our cities and out of our state to prepare for the next disaster is not the solution.

COATES: Well?

LANZA: More boots on the ground always helps. And what we've had, you know, since -- since the defund the police movement, we've had law enforcement and never hit the numbers that they've hit before. So, they're still lower than what they've been. And that's why they need more boots on the ground.

WU: At least the state police are police --

COATES: Hmm.

WU: -- versus being soldiers. And at least that, maybe, they'll have a better sense of how the actual police -- LANZA: But look what it took Gavin Newsom to finally do something about it. It took Trump, the threat of Trump, bringing the National Guard for him to say, maybe I should do something. Oh, by the way, it appears to be popular in Washington, D.C. Maybe this works here.

(CROSSTALK)

WU: -- Washington, D.C.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Oh, wait. Wait. Hold on.

WU: (INAUDIBLE).

BEHN: Be careful --

COATES: You turned and seemed to say (INAUDIBLE) that -- do you think that Gavin Newsom was waiting for Trump to act to be able to govern?

BEHN: No. I think it's a response. I think -- as I said, governors feel incredibly anxious right now, and they're trying to preempt President Trump from his overreach, which he's overreaching now almost every day, every minute.

LANZA: Every hour?

COATES: Every minute, every hour. Well, here's a good hour. The Laura Coates live hour. Thank you all so much. Up next, remember this?

[23:20:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IA): Well, we all are going to die.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joni Ernst doesn't have to worry about the backlash over that anymore because she is not seeking reelection. Now, there's some thought maybe a Democrat could win? I'll talk to one of them next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The past year has been anything but easy for the Democrats. They got trounced in the last election, lost the presidency, the Senate. And adding insult to injury, poll after poll shows their favorability keeps plummeting. So, they needed to win badly.

[23:25:00]

And they may have just gotten one in Iowa, of all places, because tonight, the 2026 Senate race there just got pretty interesting.

Sources telling CNN that the Republican senator, Joni Ernst, will not seek reelection. She has held that seat for the last decade. And you'll recall that not too long ago shook the heat for this response at a town hall. That's when a constituent voice concerns over potential cuts to Medicaid.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERNST: So, we -- people are not --

CROWD: People will die.

ERNST: Well, we all are going to die.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Something else happened this week that's -- that's really giving Democrats a glimmer of hope. A Democratic state Senate candidate named Catelin Drey scored an upset victory over her Republican challenger, winning decisively in a district that Trump carried by actually 11 percentage points. And tonight, this all has Democrats asking --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Hey! Is this heaven?

UNKNOWN: No. It's Iowa.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I love that movie. Joining me now, Iowa State Senator Zach Wahls. He's one of a handful of Democrats running in the 2026 Iowa Senate primary. Thank you for joining us, senator. I wonder what your reaction is to Senator Joni Ernst deciding not to seek reelection. Does her decision help or hurt Democrats' chances there?

ZACH WAHLS, IOWA STATE SENATOR: Laura, you know, we weren't surprised. There was polling out this week that showed we were the strongest democratic campaign taking on Senator Ernst. And, in fact, we were leading her by two points in a direct head-to-head matchup. You know, she saw our campaign coming, and she ran for the hills.

You mentioned the special election that we had earlier this week. That was actually the fourth consecutive special election for the Iowa State legislature this year in which Iowa Democrats outperformed 2024 by over 20 points. So, needless to say, people here are really fired up and ready to go.

COATES: Well, Democrats are hopeful that they can build off the momentum of those not one, but now you're saying four victories, including the most recent upset victory. And we're also learning that they plan to go on offense in a number of GOP strongholds, Democrats more broadly, places like Ohio or Texas and also Iowa. So, what do you think that the candidate most recently, Catelin Drey, did right for momentum in other places?

WAHLS: We had the opportunity to go work with Catelin. We knocked doors for her up in Sioux City. Our supporters raised funds for her campaign. And what I saw from her is that she's a fighter. And I think that's exactly what Iowans want. We want a fighter, not just a follower. I think Democrats are hungry for that all over the country. That's certainly true here in Iowa.

And if you look at Senator Ernst, I think that she became a part of the problem that she said that she was going to try and solve. She became a part of that establishment.

I think that our campaign is resonating with people all over Iowa because I'm a fighter. I've been fighting for what I think is right since I was just 19 years old, and I had to defend families like mine. I grew up with two moms from corrupt politicians just like Joni.

I took that fight to the Iowa State Senate where I've been serving now for the last four years. I've stood up to leaders of both parties to fight for my constituents and for all Iowans when that's what it takes. And unlike Joni Ernst, I've never backed down from a fight just because I thought it would be hard.

COATES: The issues that you have been consistently fighting for throughout your life, um, are very much part of the national zeitgeist. People talk about it. They are talking about policy. I do wonder if the voters, in terms of what they're most concerned with, are in line with what Democrats right now are speaking about.

And I raise this point because prominent Democrats like governors Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker, they are repeatedly accusing President Trump of authoritarian tendencies. Is that where voters are in terms of the idea of the anti-authoritarianism or is it on the issues that you have been speaking about with constituents?

WAHLS: So, what I'll tell you, Laura, we've been traveling all over Iowa, holding public town hall meetings where we don't have just Democrats coming to these events. We have independents and even Republicans coming out wanting to hear what our message is and to share their own concerns.

And the number one thing that we're hearing from people is the fact that we have an economy that is working great for the people at the very top. But for the rest of us, the cost of living, this cost crisis that we are facing in our state, it's crushing people. Iowa has fallen to 48th in personal income, 49th in our overall state GDP.

[23:30:02]

And Iowans are seeing that, whether it's at the grocery store, the doctor's office. This morning, I dropped my son, Elijah, off at daycare and was reminded that our childcare costs almost as much as our mortgage. And this is not giving people the opportunity to work hard, to get ahead, and to leave a better life for their kids and grandkids. That's the core issue that Iowans are telling us they care about. That is the core issue that we are responding to.

We are talking about the political corruption from politicians like Joni Ernst who are completely bought and paid for. And I'll tell you, my campaign already scared Joni Ernst into an early retirement, but we're just getting started. Folks can join us at zachwahls.com to help us flip this seat and send a fighter to the U.S. Senate who will unrig this broken economy and take on the political corruption.

COATES: I've read a lot about your work and your bio and the policy positions you stand for. I've also noticed and, of course, Democrats are often talking about, as are Republicans, the age of the voters that they're trying to attract and maintain. And you are the youngest Democrat running in the Senate primary. Why do you think that might resonate more with your voters?

WAHLS: I think people are hungry for a new generation of leadership. People see the failed politics that are dominating in Washington, D.C. right now. And I think Iowans from across the political spectrum are ready to turn the page on this broken era that we are currently finding ourselves in.

I will also tell you, Laura, despite being the youngest candidate in the race, I am also the most veteran legislator. I've been serving in the Iowa State Senate for the last seven years. During that time, I've built a reputation of standing --

COATES: I think we lost the state senator. We lost him for a second there. I'm sorry to cut him short. State Senator Zach Wahls, thank you for joining us. Up next --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR POLICY: Secretary Kennedy has been a crown jewel of this administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's what Stephen Miller says. The top officials are gone. There's mass vaccine confusion, and the health agencies are in turmoil. So, who and what can the public trust? We'll talk about it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, America's public health institutions in disarray. CDC Director Susan Monarez abruptly fired just weeks into her tenure after clashing with HHS Secretary RFK Jr. over vaccine policies. Now, that move prompting several top officials of the agency to quit and protest.

And the leadership crisis is now having a real effect. Major drug store, CVS, is now holding off on providing the COVID vaccine in 16 states, including Washington, D.C. as well. Why? CVS points to all of the confusing guidance coming out of HHS. So, where does it leave the people who want, let alone need these vaccines?

I want to bring in director for the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy at the University of Minnesota, Michael Osterholm. He has spent over 50 years on the front lines of public health and that continues to this very day. Michael, thank you for joining us. And -- what is your first impression as we're learning about Jim O'Neill, a public critic of the CDC, taking over the agency?

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH & POLICY: I think you have to take a step back and look at the entire situation that has happened with this administration. And as a Navy pilot, we'd say we're in a danger zone. And, frankly, in my 50 years in the business, I've never seen so many very erroneous decisions being made that really do have a very negative impact on our public's health.

And so, this is a time, I think, that we all have to come together and ask ourselves, are we prepared to see our foodborne disease work go down the drain, where we're not protecting people from foodborne illnesses or from the kind of diseases we get from ticks or mosquitoes? It's not just the vaccine preventable diseases that we're seeing right now that are being severely, severely curtailed at CDC.

COATES: Yeah. There's also this question that's raised right now about who exactly is advising Secretary RFK Jr. There's a former top infectious disease official that told CNN that it's not the experts at the health agency that's doing so. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. DEMETRE DASKALAKIS, FORMER DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR IMMUNIZATION & RESPIRATORY DISEASES, CDC: I think that another important thing to ask the secretary is, has he been ever briefed by a CDC expert on anything specifically measles, COVID-19, flu? The answer is no. So, no one from my center has ever briefed him on any of those topics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, who is briefing him? Do you have any idea who that might be then?

OSTERHOLM: Well, I can tell you it's not anyone who has any familiarity or expertise in public health because if they would, they would be surely advising in a very different way.

You know, we've had a major loss of employees at CDC. We've had major programs curtailed such that it puts the U.S. population at much greater risk. We've pulled back from the international scene where, in many cases, we were able to fight diseases on a distant shore so that they didn't make it to this country. On a whole, I could just go through a laundry list of vulnerabilities that we now suffer that I've never seen in my 50 years in this business.

COATES: So, who has to pick up the slack, then? If not the CDC, who we've become accustomed to spearheading, then who?

[23:40:01] OSTERHOLD: Well, the bottom line message is that the leadership that the secretary is providing is just not science-based. You know, it's fantasy- based largely. And what we need to do is understand that. And there's going to be a price to pay for it.

You know, what if an administration one day came in and said, you know what, we don't think the water pipes of this city are good or we don't like water coming into your home, so we're just going to shut down all the water, okay? Would anybody accept that?

Well, what we're shutting down right now are the very programs that protect us from so many diseases and help us with even the chronic diseases that we are supposedly -- supposed to make ourselves healthier in this country. At this administration, those programs have been cut, too.

So, it really defies explanation as to who's advising, what that future advising is going to look like. But we're perilously close to losing this federal agency, which is absolutely critical to protecting our public's health.

COATES: One of the focuses of RFK Jr. as a secretary, he made clear at his confirmation hearing as well, was on autism. And he has made a lot of promises on a study on autism that he says he hopes to deliver next month, including what could be causing the neural development -- developmental, excuse me, disorder. Do you have any faith in this study or the conclusions it may draw? I'm wondering, how it could be verified if a lot of your concerns from the other areas are also true?

OSTERHOLM: I think this is a case of exactly how the secretary begins to approach a problem. He has a conclusion, which often is based on information that is not scientifically sound at all, and then once he puts that conclusion out there, they will then go try to find the studies that will support that.

Well, even when he does that, he can't find the studies because they don't exist. So, in a sense, they either make them up. Literally, they did that in a previous document, that they made references up that didn't really exist.

And this is one of the challenges we have. I can tell you now what that report is going to say, but what it doesn't reflect is the body of science from the people who have been working on autism for decades, the people who have really dug down deep into what are the various causes.

And they've come up with some very important issues, none of which are vaccine-related. Yet that's because of the whole approach that he has taken and his belief that vaccines are the ultimate evil. They're going to find some way to say, see, look, these vaccines are causing this. And it's just simply not true. The other data clearly support that.

And I might add, I'm not from the autism community, but those who are in that community will tell you the same thing that I'm sharing with you. They want to help also with autism and what can be done, but they know that this is not the cause of it, these vaccines.

COATES: Dr. Osterholm, thank you so much for joining.

OSTERHOLM: Thank you.

COATES: Ahead, the investigation continues for the school shooting in Minneapolis. What a search warrant is now revealing about the shooter and the major move the governor is now considering, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We're learning new details about the investigation of the deadly Catholic school shooting in Minneapolis. Tonight, a search warrant application obtained by CNN affiliate WCCO revealing the shooter reportedly wore a mask and body armor during the attack. Authorities also recovered more magazines and unspent rounds at the scene. Police also confirming that authorities have spoken to the shooter's mother. All this comes as Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is considering committing a special session of the state legislature to address gun violence.

Tonight, as the Annunciation School community mourns the loss of two children who were just eight and 10 years old, it's important to remember the victims' families and the survivors are beginning an especially painful process of grief and of healing.

Last night, we brought you the story of a brave, heroic 12-year-old survivor named Grayson Singh, who told me what he witnessed will likely stay with him for a long time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAYSON SINGH, STUDENT, ANNUNCIATION CATHOLIC SCHOOL: One of the people, there's just a big hole in her forehead. I didn't know what was happening. And I just ran out. I was holding on to my friends. I was hugging my friends.

When I got down there, I sat there, just looking around, seeing all the little kids. It was, like, the kids with blonde hair and the girls with hair, you could just see other people's blood in their hair. Like, their friends were trying -- using (INAUDIBLE) swipes to wipe the blood out of them. And it was just a crazy experience that will probably stay in my head forever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: My next guest knows all too well the pain and trauma of surviving a school shooting. Joining me now is Geneva Cunningham. She was a survivor of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, one of the deadly school shootings in U.S. history.

Geneva, I don't even know where to begin knowing that my questions must pale in comparison to your memories. At just nine years old, you survived the Sandy Hook shooting.

[23:50:01]

Can you bring me into your mind and your thoughts when you learned about yet another school shooting?

GENEVA CUNNINGHAM, SURVIVOR, SANDY HOOK SCHOOL SHOOTING: Right now, I'm thinking about the video I just saw of that little boy talking about how he felt and what he saw. You can see it's really hard to connect with the emotion. I know. For me, um, for a really long time, I would get these notifications on my phone, and I just had to shut it off. It was too painful to watch the news. I knew it. I knew it in my body. It was stuck. I was stuck.

And when I learned about it today, what I just saw, my heart beats out of my chest. I feel like I'm going to be sick. Um, I'm so scared. I'm scared. I'm scared for them. I'm scared that no one is listening. I'm scared no one is showing up. I just want those kids to be able to be kids. You know, it makes you grow up really quick. He's so scared, you know.

I guess I'm talking about something different now. But, you know, when I -- after the shooting, when people, when reporters would call, I was -- I was so excited to answer the phone because I thought I could help, I thought I could say something important. I thought if I got on there, someone would tell me what actually happened. And maybe I'd understand.

So, when I see that video of him talking and sharing what he has seen, I'm brought back to when I was watching the television once I came home from school that day. And a lot of kids didn't get to come back and even see it.

COATES: Geneva, there are so many listening and looking at you and your experience and your journey. I'm sure they'd love to hear what you might want to say to them of how, what, why. Do you have anything you could say, especially the youngest of these survivors and what they must be going through tonight?

CUNNINGHAM: I know you're scared. It's okay. I was scared, too. You don't have to tell anyone anything. You don't have to be anything. You don't have to be strong. I really tried to be strong. You don't have to. Let people help you. Let them show you that you matter. Let the professionals do their job. Let them help you. It's okay to cry. It's okay to not know the answer. You're here, and I'm here. I'm still here. I know what you've been through, and I'm still here.

COATES: Geneva, oh. Is there anything that helped you?

CUNNINGHAM: You know, when there was another -- yet another school shooting, there has been a few, I -- I would go into the bathroom. I went to a different high school. I left Newtown. I would go to the bathroom and I'd look up the details. I'd sit on the floor under the sink with my knees to my chest like I did in the closet that day. I pull up the information. I look up. I had to see if it was real. You know, after everything with Alex Jones, I didn't know what was real and what wasn't. My body was -- I had to -- I had know. I had to know. I wanted to connect. I didn't know how. I didn't know how to have those conversations.

And, you know, almost always, someone came in the bathroom and they sat with me under that sink. You know, I don't remember their names. You know, I think people don't know how to show up and don't know how to be helpful.

Who you are, your unique way of being who you are, we all know grief, be you and show up every day. Whatever that looks like for you, trust it. You don't need to know the answers because it helps people like me under that sink, just trying to feel, just trying to make sure that it's real.

COATES: Geneva, I don't think you'll ever understand how many people you have helped with your words tonight. Thank you.

[23:55:00]

CUNNINGHAM: Thank you.

COATES: We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)