Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Jimmy Kimmel's Show Will Return After Suspension; Trump Demands Pam Bondi Prosecute His Enemies; Harris Speaks Out Ahead of Book Release; Trump Administration Warns of Unproven Link Between Tylenol and Autism. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired September 22, 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)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Thank you 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, Jimmy Kimmel is back, but not for everyone. Inside the conversations that led to his return and why some local stations are still going to be holding out. Plus, President Trump publicly demands that his attorney general does exactly what he accused the Biden administration of doing. Also, forget the excerpts. We're hearing from the author who lived it. Vice President Kamala Harris breaks her silence about her brand-new book. Her word of the day? Tyrant. Want to guess who we're talking about? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Seven hours. Then just over seven hours since Disney announced that Jimmy Kimmel will be back on the air tomorrow. And in those seven hours, you've heard from all corners of the globe. You know who we haven't heard from? The man who took just two hours to celebrate Kimmel suspension last week at 1 a.m. London time, no less. The top Republican, President Trump. Democrats, on the other hand, are cheering his return as a victory for free speech. Now, if you want to know what the mood is like, well, here's Stephen Colbert.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN COLBERT, CBS HOST: Well, just a few hours before we tape this broadcast, we got word that our long national late nightmare is over --
(APPLAUSE)
-- because Disney announced that "Jimmy Kimmel Live" will return --
(APPLAUSE)
-- to air on ABC tomorrow, Tuesday night. Come on! Whew! Once more, I am the only martyr in late nights.
(LAUGHTER) Wait, unless -- CBS, you want to announce anything?
(LAUGHTER)
Huh! Huh! Huh!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, the big question is, what happened? How did ABC go from suspension -- definitely -- to welcome home in just under a week? Well, in a statement, ABC explained the suspension was done to -- quote -- "avoid inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country" -- unquote. They called Kimmel's comments ill-timed and, thus, insensitive, and they said they spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, which led to the decision to actually return the show.
Okay. But not everyone in America will get to see Jimmy Kimmel tomorrow. Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which owns 38 ABC affiliates, says it's still not airing his program. And we have yet to hear about what the other big group that ABC seemingly considered before the suspension, Nexstar, will do.
Kimmel's return, it comes after backlash from his fans at home, fellow celebrities, including -- what? Hundreds of A-listers signing an open letter that called all of this a dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation and elected Democrats who were outraged at both the FCC for its threats and outrage at Disney. For them, Kimmel's suspension was another example of the capitulation that we have been seeing from institutions throughout this second term of President Trump, A point that former Vice President Kamala Harris made earlier tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: These titans of industry are not speaking up. At some point, they've got to stand up for the sake of the people who rely on all of these institutions to -- to have integrity and to, at some point, be the guardrails against a tyrant who is using the federal government to execute his whim and fancy because of a fragile ego.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: We have much more on what the former vice president had to say in just a moment. But first, Kara Swisher, CNN contributor and host of the "On" and "Pivot" podcasts, Dominic Patten, executive editor of Deadline Hollywood, and Bryan Lanza, former Trump campaign senior advisor, are with me to talk about all of these.
Okay, first of all, Dominic, what are you learning? How did all this happen? What were these thoughtful conversations about? And, by the way, what might he say tomorrow?
[23:05:00] DOMINIC PATTEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD: Well, I mean, for one thing, I'd say thoughtful conversation is such a polite way of saying days of arguing.
COATES: Hmm.
PATTEN: But, clearly, we know that there was a lot of back and forth that started actually the day after Jimmy was suspended and his show indefinitely preempted. A lot of back and forth, you know, led mainly by Disney Entertainment chief Dana Walden and Jimmy directly and their teams. This went over the weekend. There was some tension. There was a lot of this.
What was really at issue here is what would Jimmy be allowed to say if he did return --
COATES: Hmm.
PATTEN: -- and how did Disney want him to say it. Now, I think it's very interesting even though, clearly, somebody blinked here, and I don't think it was the host of "Jimmy Kimmel Live" because he's coming back. Disney did take a little swipe at him, didn't they? As you read in the intro, ill-timed, insensitive comments.
One last dig. The reality is this was decided finally this morning by Disney CEO Bob Iger and Dana Walden with Jimmy after a last flurry of emails, text, and some paperwork, and that pretty much set the stage for the return tomorrow.
As for what he's going to say tomorrow, I think it's pretty clear he is going to address this. What's interesting, though, is we don't know right now who guests are going to be.
COATES: Hmm.
PATTEN: There's some talk that some of the guests like Wanda Sykes, for instance, who were supposed to be on last week, will return. We do know it's going to be in front of a full studio audience as usual. And I think you're going to see Jimmy Kimmel live. But I think you're going to see maybe a little more swing in his step tomorrow, if you know what I mean.
COATES: Well, Kara, the idea of --
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, PODCAST HOST: Uh-hmm.
COATES: -- what he's going to say and talking about what he can say doesn't seem quite sustainable in the long run for a host of a program --
SWISHER: Yeah.
COATES: -- such as his. But we also had the beginning of what seemed to be a boycott pressure. People were canceling Disney Plus. There were -- what? Celebrities who were signing this open letter about, uh, free speech. And then, of course, John Oliver had this to say. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN OLIVER, HBO HOST: If we've learned nothing else from this administration's second term so far, and I don't think we have --
(LAUGHTER)
-- is that giving the bully your lunch money doesn't make him go away, it just makes him come back hungry at each time. They are never going to stop. They've literally said that openly.
So, I'd argue, why not draw it right here? And when they come to you with stupid, ridiculous demands, picking fights that you know you could win in court, instead of rolling over, why not stand up and use four keywords they don't tend to teach you in business school? Not okay, you're the boss. Not whatever you say goes. But instead, the only phrase that can genuinely make a weak bully go away, and that is (bleep) make me.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I mean, what is your reaction, Kara? Is that the prudent advice, shall we say?
SWISHER: Well, it's the John Oliver advice. I mean, he's a comic. Let's be clear, he wants to cause that kind of thing. And -- but it's a version of that. It's a version of that. A lot of people I talked to, especially other media moguls who are contemporaries of Iger, were pretty surprised that he did this. One of them called him despicable, which I was shocked by.
COATES: Hmm.
SWISHER: He could have done a lot of things. He could have put Kimmel on streaming. He could have done -- could have hired the best lawyers ever and gone after Brendan Carr, who behaved miserably here, obviously, gave lots of fodder to people to make that straight line. Uh, he could have done a lot of things. This -- this never had to happen. This was kind of weird. They certainly could have done something other than canceling him indefinitely, and then bring him back. It looks weak on all sides --
COATES: Hmm.
SWISHER: -- to do so. If they really had a problem, they should have let him go and paid him off and everything else, but they didn't do that. And so, it's not a great look for, obviously, Bob Iger and it's definitely not a great look for Brendan Carr who now looks like a wannabe mobster that carry through on these threats. We'll see if he does. He's now, apparently, saying he wasn't really going to pull the licenses. So, the whole thing was unnecessary.
COATES: Well, that's convenient. I wasn't really -- I wasn't really serious about this. Bryan, let me ask you, because I want you to hear what the FCC chair, Brendan Carr, had to say today before Disney announce Kimmel's return.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRENDAN CARR, CHAIRMAN, FCC: Jimmy Kimmel was in the situation that he's in because of his ratings, not because of anything that has happened at the federal government level.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Obviously distancing himself from that through line that Kara was referencing. But, I mean, there was a chain reaction from his statements last week to then what happened. He also seemed to get the ire of some Republicans, including Ted Cruz who talked about the constitutional or the lack of constitutionality of something like this. Politically, how does this fare for someone like Brendan Carr having gone out on this -- what he thought was a pretty secure limb?
BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRUMP-VANCE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: You know, listen, I think he's still -- first off, I don't agree with it, but I feel like he's still in secure space because at the end of the day, you have Sinclair, you have Nexstar, which are the major affiliates for ABC that would carry that show.
But if you need not to carry that show, one is even -- ask for an apology, which we hear Jimmy Kimmel, you know, now that he has a stride back, is not going to apologize.
So, it's very hard for that show to maintain, you know, any type of business model if the vast majority of the networks aren't going to carry him.
COATES: Well, Dominic, on that point, I mean, Sinclair Broadcasting Group owns more than -- what? Two dozen ABC affiliates.
SWISHER: Yeah.
[23:10:03]
COATES: They say it won't bring back Kimmel. Nexstar, though, isn't commenting so far. Dominic, do you have any idea what Nexstar is going to do? And, by the way, can Disney afford to be at odds with either of them?
PATTEN: Well, first thing, I think, Laura, that Nexstar is doing is they're waiting to see what the man at 16 Pennsylvania Avenue tweets out. That's how they're going to base their reaction because, as we've all mentioned before, they have a multi-billion-dollar deal that the FCC has to give regulatory approval to.
The second thing that I would say is, look, Nexstar owns -- I believe it's 32 ABC affiliates of the 200 stations they own around the country. As you pointed out, Sinclair owns 38. Those are -- that's a lot of stations. But they're not in the biggest markets in America --
COATES: Uh-hmm. PATTEN: -- if you want to be honest.
SWISHER: Right.
PATTEN: They're not in Philly, Chicago, New York --
SWISHER: Correct.
PATTEN: -- Houston, L.A., San Francisco. And, again, stop talking about ratings. I want to go back to what Kara said about streaming. The reality is ratings are a very small part of the entertainment platform today. It's about what's on streaming. It's about your viral clips. It's about how it's carried over. These are parts of (INAUDIBLE). And if you're ABC, of course, or Disney Plus, you're putting Jimmy on there.
COATES: (INAUDIBLE).
PATTEN: So, rating is not the way you gauge this. That's the way you gauge this if it's in 2005 or even 2015. The reality is that's what Donald Trump and these guys are fighting. They're fighting grievances from 10 or 15 years ago --
SWISHER: Yeah. Exactly.
PATTEN: -- with weapons from 10 or 15 years ago.
COATES: Kara, what do you want to say?
SWISHER: Yeah. I mean, these are not big stations. The top 44 -- I think it's maybe just a few in the top 44. So, it doesn't really matter. And it doesn't really matter. And Sinclair can do whatever it wants. Absolutely. If it wants to put on "Golden Girls" to deal with its ever-aging audience, that sounds great.
(LAUGHTER)
They should do whatever they want. And same thing with Nexstar. Nexstar, of course, is under -- is under -- as Dominic noted, they want this deal to raise the level from 39% higher. And, of course, the Trump administration will probably do so. Brendan Carr has already signaled that he's possibly doing it.
You know, it was just a silly play -- powerplay by Brendan Carr who never met a camera, didn't want to look at. And he really needs to calm himself down and stop making things like he's going to do this the easy way or the hard way.
I mean, I was waiting for leave the -- you know --
PATTEN: Yeah.
SWISHER: -- take the gun -- leave the gun, take the cannoli out of him at one point.
(LAUGHTER) It's just ridiculous.
PATTEN: (INAUDIBLE).
SWISHER: So, we'll see what -- what goes on next. But, I mean, the problem is an economic problem, absolutely, with all these shows.
COATES: Yeah.
SWISHER: And I think would be -- would be really amazing. And I don't know what Jimmy Kimmel is going to do. As if he got up and said, well, thank you so much, Disney. Now, I'm leaving and starting a podcast business, and --
COATES: Hmm.
SWISHER: -- I'm going to own all of it. I mean, wouldn't that be something to say?
COATES: It would be -- it would be something to see. But --
SWISHER: They've got to figure out the economics of this, but not this way, of course.
COATES: Well, that's the economics. Real quick, Bryan. That map we just showed in terms of where Sinclair stations are -- if we could pull up for audience. Well, I think it's really illuminating for people to understand because you look at that map of where Sinclair broadcasting is, and you can't help but wonder how that correlates to the electorate and what the Republicans and those who want to be reelected are looking at as well. What do you see in terms of that overlay?
LANZA: Yeah. Listen, I look at a lot of red states. You know, Sinclair knew in 2016 that their -- significant amount of their markets were in red -- were in red markets.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
LANZA: And they focused on that. They focused on the first administration. It had an impact. Sinclair, obviously, did extensive lobbying. It was able to have things in its favor. And Nexstar is going to do the same thing. I mean, this is -- this is the beginning of more and more dominoes of a consolidation that I think is going to take place.
COATES: Well, Kara, Dominic, Bryan, thank you for being a friend. You mentioned "Golden Girls." I get right back to you.
(LAUGHTER)
See you all later. Thank you.
SWISHER: Great show.
COATES: It's an excellent show. And Rose Nylund from Minnesota, hello. I digress. Tonight, I've got to talk to you what's going on with President Trump's DOJ. We really have to talk about what's going on with the DOJ. You know how Trump renamed the Department of Defense the Department of War? It's looking more and more like he's using the Department of Justice and might be renaming it as the Department of Retribution.
Let's start here. A public call out of his attorney general, Pam Bondi. He urged her to more aggressively pursue charges against former FBI director, James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. And on top of that, we got Trump saying the quiet part out loud at Charlie Kirk's funeral.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent. And I don't want the best for them. I'm sorry. I am sorry, Erika. But now, Erika can talk to me and the whole group, and maybe they can convince me that that's not right, but I can't stand my opponent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, you can probably predict one way Trump's allies would defend that.
[23:15:00]
Let's say it was a joke. You can tell by his tone. If you look at what's happening, it sure doesn't seem like a joke. Look at the Eastern District of Virginia, for example. Lindsey Halligan is the new
U.S. attorney there. She has never worked as a prosecutor. She defended Trump in the classified documents case. That's true. she's also one of his fiercest loyalists.
Halligan, of course, is there because she's replacing Erik Siebert who had been forced out after nearly 15 years as a prosecutor in that district. Why? Because Trump wanted him gone. He wasn't happy that Siebert didn't bring charges against Letitia James or James Comey. Why? Well, because prosecutors believe the evidence just was not there. Maybe Halligan will. At least it seems clear Trump's hope she will.
You can't pull evidence out of thin air, right? And if you try to do that, injustice could occur or the very weaponization that he promised to end the day he took office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The scales of justice will be rebalanced. The vicious, violent, and unfair weaponization of the Justice Department and our government will end. Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The White House was challenged on that very pledge today, and whether Trump had decided to ignore that very pledge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Is the president going back on his promise?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No. In fact, the president is fulfilling his promise to restore a Department of Justice that demands accountability. And it is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand accountability for those who weaponized the Department of Justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Hmm. But what does accountability really mean? When it comes to Trump allies, the standard, I mean, it looks different. Pick this headline from "The New York Times." "Trump Justice Department closed investigation to Tom Homan for accepting a bag of cash."
Yes, Tom Homan as in President Trump's border czar. The Times spoke with sources who claim that he was recorded last year taking $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents. They were, apparently, posing as businessmen. Part of some sort of counterintelligence investigation that was not actually targeting Homan. But the reports in the Times, he took the cash and agreed to help the agents secure government contracts.
Sources tell the Times the DOJ eventually dropped the case against Homan. Why? Might sound familiar. Apparently, the evidence wasn't there to support the charges. And tonight, Homan is responding to those allegations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, WHITE HOUSE BORDER CZAR: I did nothing criminal. I did nothing illegal. And there's hit piece after hit piece after hit piece. And I'm glad the FBI and DOJ came out and said. You know, said that nothing illegal happened. Nothing -- you know, no criminal activity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, my next guests, they're going to have a lot to say about all of this. Miles Taylor, who himself is being targeted by the administration, and former assistant U.S. attorney, Kim Wehle, are with me right after this. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: An eye for an eye. President Trump pressuring Attorney General Pam Bondi to target rivals. But is he pushing legal boundaries? Could it backfire? With me now, former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland
Security under President Trump, Miles Taylor. He's one of the people being targeted by the Trump administration as well. Miles, good to see a lot has been happening, as you can imagine, and the White House is insisting that Trump supports Bondi 100% despite his very public pressure campaign to indict political opponents. But I wonder from your opinion, and what you've seen in the past, are her days numbered if she does not do as he says in that area?
MILES TAYLOR, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF AT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Yes, they are. In fact, I've lived this story in an eerily similar way because, you know, some people have even drawn parallels between Pam Bondi and one of my former bosses, Kirstjen Nielsen, who was secretary of Homeland Security, both very smart, fast talking, blondes in positions in Trump's Cabinet that he cares a great deal about and people who he's not afraid to, uh, to yell at in public to put pressure on.
He did this with Kirstjen Nielsen in the first Trump administration. He would say nice things, and then he would say very, very critical things on television to put pressure on there. And I've seen that story.
I think, right now, he is sending a very clear signal to the attorney general. If you do not go prosecute my enemies, despite the fact that they appear not to have evidence of the Justice Department to go prosecute the people on the president's enemies list, then he'll get rid of her, and he'll put someone in the job who will. And he showed that, of course, as you noted, in the Eastern District of Virginia, by replacing the prosecutor there with a White House loyalist. He won't hesitate to do that with Bondi.
COATES: And just so -- I mean, the idea of not having evidence is not like details, details. That's a really significant thing given the burden of proof from the government after proved guilts. And it's just astounding to me that that would be something not considered.
But let me ask you this because the president unequivocally said during Charlie Kirk's memorial, he said, I hate my opponents, and I don't want the best for them. Obviously, a quite stark contrast from what Charlie Kirk's widow was describing in terms of her views in that sad memorial that she was having to experience with the loss of her husband.
[23:25:01]
You have long believed that president sees you as a foe. Does that rhetoric? Did what he said concern you?
TAYLOR: Look, I think it should concern any American. For me, personally, I mean, that's something that I've anticipated. But I think the takeaway for folks should be that these people the president is targeting, his enemies, most of the people on that list are people who have criticized him.
COATES: Uh-hmm. TAYLOR: And -- and I'll read you a quote, Laura, from someone who had something to say about what that means when you go after free speech like that. Here's the quote, and we'll see if we can guess who the person is. The quote is "if the idea of free speech enrages you, the cornerstone of democratic self-government that I regret to inform you, that you are a fascist." That quote was from Stephen Miller, the White House Homeland Security advisor three years ago.
COATES: Hmm.
TAYLOR: He said, if you don't believe in the idea of free speech, you are a fascist. Now, Donald Trump, in going after so many of his critics for speaking out against him and going after news networks and going after comedians, has crossed a red line into dictator territory. He's demanding these people be prosecuted without evidence. And that's a line even his closest allies had drawn in the past.
And you've seen, Laura, all throughout this year, there have been very few issues that actually spooked fellow conservatives, except the latest efforts by the president to crack down on free speech, have started to get people like Senator Ted Cruz, have started to get people like Tucker Carlson, and others worried that perhaps Donald Trump has gone too far.
Now, I have no illusions that they'll rein it in, but I do think we are genuinely in a place this country has never been with the weaponization of justice.
COATES: A really ominous warning. Miles Taylor, thank you.
TAYLOR: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: I want to bring in former assistant U.S. attorney, Kim Wehle. You could follow her on Substack at "The Little Law School with Kim Wehle." I love that, by the way. Look, Kim, not that the DOJ or this DOJ would actually prosecute this sitting president. But tell me, have any laws actually been broken by the president of United States directing his attorney general to prosecute his perceived enemies?
KIM WEHLE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: There aren't that many cases on this, Laura, because it just hasn't really happened. But the protection that in theory could be violated is the due process clause of the Constitution. This idea that if prosecutors are picking and choosing targets of investigations and prosecutions based on race, based on religion, based on politics, that's denying you your fundamental right to a fair shot. But the bar for establishing that is really high --
COATES: Hmm.
WEHLE: -- because the law just assumes prosecutors act in good faith. That's just how it's historically been. So, if it were a low bar and you could raise that claim all the time, every defendant --
COATES: Right. WEHLE: -- would raise it. So, they've made it so that you really have to show the -- I mean, meaning the court, the Supreme Court, that you really have to show that there was this intentional vindictiveness or a choice that was made based on criteria that's unconstitutional.
COATES: Yeah. Well, that's why if I were a prosecutor handling matters still, I'd be pulling my hair out at the thought that there would be some very vocal statement by the president of United States directing an attorney general and presumably the people that work for -- under her.
There would be a defense counsel who'd be savvy enough and, frankly, just literate enough to read it and go, uh, Your Honor, courts, appeals, et cetera, this is something that's a problem. Isn't that part of what the risk of this is?
WEHLE: No question. So, that kind of sort of smoking gun evidence of intent of some kind of animus is unheard of. You normally have to connect the dots in other ways. But there are two problems with that. Number one is the court has said, so long as there's some evidence, they'll get a presumption that the case would go forward based on the evidence.
The other wrinkle I see is the case last summer, Trump versus United States, where the Supreme Court gave the president immunity to commit crimes, basically so long as he uses his power of his office, which includes, you know, prosecutorial power.
And I think the fact that the attorney general is an arm's length from the president, Supreme Court also said you can't look into his intent, I think that's going to be a hurdle in these cases that muddies the water a bit. And, of course, we have a very uh friendly Supreme Court majority for Donald Trump right now.
COATES: We often talk about a constitutional crisis. But what about a credibility crisis? I mean, prosecutors, they're considered fungible, right? Interchangeable. So, what one does, combining the government and other contacts, at least the reputation can do so as well.
[23:30:00]
The morale must be just teetering on the brink of going mad within the DOJ. We've both been at the DOJ before. I've talked to friends who were there. The morale is very low given the microscope and also the fact that they might appear to people as biased and politically- motivated. That's really the death knell for a prosecutor wanting to have credibility in the court.
WEHLE: Credibility in the court, credibility with judges.
COATES: Right.
WEHLE: And also, you know, these are very plumb jobs in the legal world, as you know. It's very difficult to get a job with the DOJ.
COATES: Yeah. WEHLE: There's a prestige to it. People take it very, very seriously. It's a somber approach to serving the public, and they could be in fancy law firms making a lot of money. They do this because they believe in the mission of the rule of law.
What is the rule of law, Laura? It's consistent across the globe in liberal democracies. It means that the law is applied not arbitrarily, that whoever's in charge of law is not picking winners and losers based on who they like or dislike, but based on facts and rules. And it's almost -- it's that sacred sense of what makes us a democracy, which is that even-handed law application, which, I think, is really what is being put by the wayside right now, and it's really a tragedy.
COATES: Kim Wehle, thank you so much.
WEHLE: Always a pleasure.
COATES: Up next, Kamala Harris explains why she stayed silent despite her concerns about Joe Biden's decision to run again. Highlights from her-brand new interview next. And later, the president makes an unproven link between autism and Tylenol, and tells America's pregnant women to -- quote -- "tough it out." Confusion (ph) is already causing -- next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Vice President Kamala Harris giving her first television interview ahead of her book release and that releases tomorrow. Well, she writes in her book, it was reckless to leave it up to the Biden's whether he should run for reelection. She says she had a personal responsibility to speak up but remain silent. Here's how she described the decision to do so to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When I write this, it's because I realized that I have and had a certain responsibility that I should have followed through on, which is -- and so, when I talk about the recklessness, as much as anything, I'm talking about myself. Um, there was so much, as we know, at stake. And as I write, you know, where my head was at the time is that it would be completely -- it would come off as being completely self-serving.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: If you said to President Biden --
HARRIS: If I --
MADDOW: -- that you did not think he should run again.
HARRIS: Yeah, or even that he should question whether it's a good idea.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now are two Harris alums, CNN political commentator Jamal Simmons. He's the former communications director for Vice President Harris and a former deputy assistant to President Biden. Also here, Ashley Etienne, the former communications director for Vice President Harris. I cannot think of two better people to have a conversation with about where we are right now and this book in particular as well.
I'll begin with you, Jamal. Harris says that she worried it would feel self-serving to bring up Biden dropping out earlier. What's your reaction?
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I think that's absolutely fair. I mean, you say to someone, hey, you know, I think you ought to leave your job and, you know, then I'll go ahead and take it. That's kind of a thing that they might wonder whether or not you're actually being sincere. So, I think that is something that she actually really -- she said that. I think that she worried about that, was concerned about that. I find that to be totally legitimate and authentic.
COATES: Yet, if you're a president, you expect your vice president to be ambitious, given the track record of vice presidents who try to run for office. It wouldn't be so shocking, would it be Ashley, to have her want the job and Biden to know it? What's your assessment?
ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I mean, um, I just -- for me, this just raises a lot of concerns and a vulnerability for her. I think Governor Shapiro sort of identified it properly, which is that she's going to have to do some more explaining on this.
I mean, you know, I'll do respect to Jamal. I mean, it just doesn't feel like it adds up a whole lot. Like I take her at her word, but when you have a situation where DOJ and the oversight committee are deposing Biden staffers right now and engaging them about his health and his -- his, uh, whether or not he was competent in the job, I just think she's going to have to, you know, really answer some more questions about this.
And that's really my concern, is that she's really kind of stepping in this and putting herself in a very vulnerable position.
COATES: Hmm. That's an interesting point. I wonder if they will ask her to call to account or whatever is written. The book drops tomorrow. You know, we've been hearing a lot about the different excerpts, as you all undoubtedly seen. And, Jamal, one of the things that was talked about was the V.P. stakes. Who would she choose? Who would be her running mate?
She wrote in the book that Buttigieg was actually her first choice, not the Minnesota governor who ended up being her running mate. But Buttigieg would have been her first choice if he were a straight white man. Was that being too cautious given the electorate and where they were? SIMMONS: Well, you know, the vice president can be a little cautious.
(LAUGHTER)
I mean, I think that's part of something about her career. But also, she's in a career and a trajectory in her life where she was held to a higher standard. You know, Black women, I don't have to tell you, guys, are held to a higher standard.
[23:40:01]
And so, it may make you a little more cautious than most. I thought the more interesting anecdote in there, I'm sure people -- you know, the Buttigieg one was interesting, but the Josh Shapiro --
(LAUGHTER)
-- question about how he did his interview and he was maybe, you know, measuring the drapes at the V.P.'s residence during his interview, that seemed a little bit like a poke at Governor Shapiro.
And then the Mark Kelly question, which for me -- you know, I was very vocal, I thought that Mark Kelly should have been the vice- presidential nominee. I thought the reasoning for why he wasn't a nominee, to me, didn't -- didn't ring all that great. But I understand she liked Tim Walz, and that's who she picked. And, you know, this history unfolded the way it did.
COATES: I want to play for you -- answer, Ashley. I want to play what the vice president had to say tonight. She discussed part of this point in the earlier interview. I want to play it for everyone.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: I was clear that in 107 days, in one of the most hotly contested elections for President of the United States, against someone like Donald Trump who knows no floor --
MADDOW: Hmm.
HARRIS: -- to be a Black woman running for president of United States and as a vice presidential running mate a gay man, with the stakes being so high, it made me very sad, but I also realized it would be a real risk.
Maybe I was being too cautious. You know, I let our friends -- we should all talk about that. Maybe I was. But that's the decision I made.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Was she too cautious, Ashley?
ETIENNE: I mean, I don't know. I mean, I think Tim Walz added a lot to the ticket. I mean, I think, you know -- I will tell you, Laura, I've read the book. COATES: Uh-hmm.
ETIENNE: And so, for me, I mean, as a strategist and as an advisor, I would have advised the vice president to write a different book.
COATES: Hmm.
ETIENNE: I would have advised her to write a book that actually cements her legacy. I mean, she's bad. I mean, she has broken every glass ceiling at every stage of her career.
She has gotten more -- more votes nationally than any other Democratic presidential candidate. She was instrumental in passing some of the biggest pieces -- pieces of legislation. We've seen in my lifetime infrastructure, uh, the gun reform bill. She led on voting rights and reproductive rights. I mean, she has an incredible story to tell.
I think, from my perspective, that's the story that my daughter, your daughter, Jamal's daughter, the next generation needs to hear. That's the type of book that stands the test of time. I think the concern here is that this book will not stand the test of time. I don't think we'll be talking about this book much longer, regrettably.
And I think it was a missed opportunity for her to address her real Achilles heel, which is there are still questions about who is Kamala Harris. She had every opportunity in 300 pages to tell us who she actually is, what she actually achieved, why she was a better candidate over Donald Trump. And, like, none of that comes across in any of those pages. So, I just would have advised her to write a different book.
COATES: Quickly --
ETIENNE: Again --
(CROSSTALK)
-- all these, you know, generation of young women would have been able to really resonate with them and really give them a guide. She's the blueprint.
COATES: Hmm.
ETIENNE: And I think she should have written that book. But that's just my take.
COATES: Jamal, quickly.
SIMMONS: Yeah. You know, Laura, one of the things that we never take account of is the Biden White House, I think, didn't quite understand how to handle Kamala Harris as a political asset. You know, she wasn't a typical politician. She wasn't Joe Biden or Al Gore or Mike Pence.
And so, having a woman of color, also having somebody who was not a Washington insider, the typical vice president over the last couple of decades, it has been somebody who was a Washington insider with a president who was an outsider. They didn't have that dynamic.
And I think the White House never quite figured out how to use her best as a person who could go out in the country, be an emissary of the president, gather information and bring it back. I just don't think it worked out very well.
ETIENNE: Jamal, let me tell you, you know, we've been in this town for a long time. Power isn't given. You have to go and take it. You know, there -- she points out that she had an unprecedented opportunity. Twelve reporters following her around. I mean, Joe Biden gave her a lot of room that he never got. So, you don't sit around and wait for someone to make space for you. You got to take it. You know?
And that's the advice we -- all of us will be giving our daughters going forward and anyone else that wants to occupy the Oval Office, is you don't sit back and wait, you just take it.
COATES: Hmm. A whole word. Jamal, Ashley, thank you both. Ahead, Trump goes against decades of evidence and links autism to using Tylenol during pregnancy. So, what are pregnant women supposed to believe? I got a doctor here to separate fact from fiction next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: You know, I remember what it was like to be pregnant. And the list of do's and list of don'ts. You're excited and you're afraid. You do not want to make a misstep. You don't want to eat the wrong thing or use the wrong thing or take the wrong thing. So, you try to follow your doctor's orders to a T. And when there's a conflicting amount of guidance, well, then you hope for some sort of government standard that is presumably rooted in decades and decades of research because, like any mother of older kids will tell a pregnant mother, women have been having babies since forever.
Well, that's why today, we all lean in to hear the very latest and, of course, the research that must be there to prove whatever it is we were going to hear. Well, today, President Trump's message, alongside his Health and Human Services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., they say the FDA will warn against the use of acetaminophen, commonly known as Tylenol, during pregnancy, falsely claiming that it can increase rates of autism.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So, taking Tylenol is, uh, not good.
[23:50:02]
If you can't tough it out, if you can't do it, uh, that's what you're going to have to do. You'll take a Tylenol, but it'll be very sparingly. Don't take Tylenol. There's no downside. Don't take it. You'll be uncomfortable. It won't be as easy, maybe. But don't take it. If you're pregnant, don't take Tylenol and don't give it to the baby after the baby is born.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Tough it out. Because pregnant women are -- are known to be weak. Need the reminder to tough things out. Huh. Well, Tylenol has also long been considered the only safe over-the-counter option for pain or fever during pregnancy. Medical experts are already pushing back, as you can imagine, saying that autism is caused by multiple factors. And the science concerning the connection between Tylenol use during pregnancy and autism is not defined, they say.
The rate of autism in this country is on the rise. About one in every 31 children was diagnosed with autism by the age of eight in 2022. That was up from one in 36 in 2020, all according to a CDC report published in April.
Joining me now is Dr. Alycia Halladay, chief science officer for the Autism Science Foundation. Dr. Halladay, welcome. I'm glad that you're here because I need help in trying to understand today's announcement. It linked Tylenol to an increased risk of autism. Do you believe that that's accurate? And, of course, what should pregnant women be thinking and believing?
ALYCIA HALLADAY, CHIEF SCIENCE OFFICER, AUTISM SCIENCE FOUNDATION: I can completely understand why pregnant women are probably freaking out right now --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
HALLADAY: -- not knowing what to do, watching this press conference, wondering what they -- you know, should they talk to their doctor? The bottom line is that they should continue to have conversations with their doctor about why they need Tylenol to begin with. Where is their pain coming from? Why are they seeking out Tylenol as a pain reliever?
Um, the risk of having a fever, unmitigated or untreated fever, far outweighs any sort of minimal, if any, risk of taking acetaminophen while pregnant. And so, women, if they have a fever, should not hesitate to reach out to the doctor and actually ask for Tylenol.
There have been a few studies. I know Dr. Makary said that there were 27 studies. In fact, there aren't that many. And most of them do not show an association between prenatal Tylenol exposure and autism. So --
COATES: But -- but I will say, on that point, doctor, there was -- there were some studies. One was -- showed that link between acetaminophen or Tylenol to autism. There was this recent meta- analysis finding strong evidence of an association. But I want you to break that down because people hear the word link, they the word association.
HALLADAY: Uh-huh.
COATES: They're probably wondering. Does that mean cause or is this a scientific term of art in some way that they need not worry? Can you explain what those two terms would mean?
HALLADAY: Yeah. So, one of the studies that did show an association actually didn't even look at prenatal --
COATES: Okay.
HALLADAY: -- maternal acetaminophen exposure. But when you see -- when you hear about two things being associated, you can talk about the association between going to church and autism, right? So, like as -- as going to church goes up, autism has got -- going to church goes down, autism rates have gone up. Eating organically. More people are eating organically, more people are developing autism. Those things are associations. They are not causal.
There's something else going on in the middle that is actually the cause. And in the case of acetaminophen and autism, it may be the underlying fever, which is why people take Tylenol to begin with. But there are so many underlying factors there that weren't really included in some of the analyses --
COATES: Hmm.
HALLADAY: -- that they can't be ruled out. So, um, what we say is correlation does not mean causation. So, two things are correlated. There could be something going on completely in the middle. So, they're not causally linked. They're only --
COATES: So, this could be totally, um, unrelated and it could be whatever's causing the fever. It could be something that needs to be explored more. That's just one consideration, as you're describing it. But then -- I mean, I have young kids, Dr. Halladay. I'm always trying to stay on top of a vaccine schedule and what's recommended. Of course, a dose for medicine. all the things that every parent out there is constantly thinking about to raise healthy children.
And the HHS secretary, RFK Jr., he warned about acetaminophen use in young children, claiming -- this was his words -- prudent medicine suggests caution.
[23:55:00]
What's your response to that?
HALLADAY: Uh-hmm.
COATES: Is there research to support this?
HALLADAY: There's no research to support that Tylenol exposure to young children causes autism. There's absolutely none. Um, I think -- I think that that comment was actually more aimed at Tylenol being used to mitigate fevers associated with vaccines. So, it's kind of going back to vaccines again. Again, the risk of having an untreated fever is much, much higher than
any even documented or reported risk of -- or, you know, any sort of hypothetical risk of autism being linked to acetaminophen. So, you really need to make sure -- parents and doctors need to keep fevers under control. They are far more dangerous than even acetaminophen is hypothesized to be.
COATES: So, bottom line, talk to your doctor about your health.
HALLADAY: Absolutely. And there may be an alternative to acetaminophen. There may be an underlying reason for chronic pain that hasn't even been considered before, right? So just go ahead and talk to your doctor and explain what's going on, and they'll give you the best course of action. But I think a blanket-women should just tough it out is not really the most prudent advice.
COATES: They make you think someone has never toughed it out before. I've been pregnant before. Good luck.
HALLADAY: Yes. I mean, honestly, you know, it's -- really, it was actually kind of insulting. So --
COATES: We could go on and on on that point alone. Thank you so much.
HALLADAY: Thank you.
COATES: Thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
