Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Administration Lays Off 4,000+ Federal Workers Amid Shutdown; Bondi Caught Off Guard By James Indictment; MAGA Rages Over Announcement Of Qatari Base In Idaho; Stocks Tank As Trump Reignites Trade War. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired October 10, 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: She's going to tell us all about what we've been digging into while you've been watching that on T.V. Chef, what do we got here?

LIZA ZENESKI, SUPERVISING CULINARY PRODUCER, FOOD NETWORK: Um, so, tonight, we're going old things pumpkin and old things fall. So, these are our cheese tortellini with a pumpkin Alfredo sauce. A little bit sweet, creamy, velvety. Some fried sage on top. Like a hug in a bowl, I hope.

PHILLIP: It's delicious. It is so good. Um, if you're skeptical of pumpkins, which some people are, I don't think --

ZENESKI: Who is skeptical of pumpkins?

PHILLIP: Some people are skeptical of pumpkins, right?

ZENESKI: No one.

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIP: It's like not like heavily pumpkin-y. I highly recommend it. All right, thank you, guys, so much for watching "NewsNight." Catch our round table show, "Table for Five," tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN. Laura Coates is right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, day 10 of the government shutdown and more than 4,000 federal workers laid off today alone with no end in sight. President Trump puts politics over job performance. And now, military paychecks hang in the balance. Plus, wait, what indictment? A new reporting that says that Pam Bondi did not know Trump's hand-picked prosecutor was going to charge Letitia James. And the Pentagon's new military move in Idaho that's got MAGA in a tizzy. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

All right, raise your hand if you've ever held your breath while they slide your credit card. Keep it up if you've ever worked hard and the money still was not enough to make those ends meet. Still up if you know what it feels like to live paycheck to paycheck or if the landlord, the bill collector, the daycare provider, the student loan debtor, they want more than an IOU because you'll have the money eventually.

Well, you can imagine what it's like for federal workers for the last 10 days and the next however many. Now, you know I worked in the federal government. I went through one of these shutdowns. Still having to work with a baby on my knee and another on the way. Now you feel -- you're -- you're nervous. You are scared. And frankly, you're pissed.

And tonight, what's happening to thousands of federal workers is even worse than missing paychecks and possibly getting your money back at the end of whenever the shutdown ends. They're losing their jobs.

The message, it came in four words from President Trump's budget chief. The RIF -- the RIFs have begun. R-I-F, reduction in force. Fancy for you're out of a job.

And if you're one of those federal workers getting cut by the OMB reaper, remember that tweet, that post, Russell Vought? Then you may be feeling that this is happening at the worst possible time, as if any time was good. But the economic health of the country is not clear. Trump's newest terror threat today is raising more anxiety. Hiring is at a standstill, at least based on the latest reports that we have, which aren't coming anymore because of the shutdown. And if you want to try to find another job in the government, you might be asking yourself, is it even worth it? Will I have to endure one of these on-again, off-again, shutdown threats down the road, which means we've got less of the workforce the government needs? Or you might be thinking, I don't want to work in this politicized environment anymore, count me out. Because that's what it has become. And if you needed the latest evidence that that's what has become, look who President Trump is blaming for the layoffs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: How many layoffs have you authorized for this first round and from which agencies?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It will be Democrat-oriented because we figure -- you know, they started this thing, so they should be Democrat-oriented. It'll be a lot, and we'll announce the numbers over the next couple of days. But it'll be a lot of people. All because of the Democrats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Democrat-oriented? What is -- what does -- seriously, what is Democrat-oriented even mean if you're a federal employee wondering if you're next? I'm not sure what that would mean in the long run. The president is admitting in the short run, admitting out loud that he is carrying out layoffs based on politics, right? I mean, not performance, not from what he just said.

And he says that he will announce how many people are impacted. But we already have an idea. And it's a lot. More than 4,000 federal workers across seven departments. And we know that. Why? Because of a lawsuit in California that was filed by federal unions fighting to keep their workers employed.

[23:04:58]

And believe me, the lawsuits are going to keep coming because, well, this is unprecedented. No president has used a shutdown justification for mass firings. And it frankly wasn't even clear if it was going to happen. The administration, yes, had dangled the threat of layoffs in the opening days of the shutdown, but then they backed off of that threat, at least until now.

It is not just civilian federal workers that Trump is treating and saying like part of a partisan spoil system. This is about to hit the military, where politics is supposed to stop at the water's edge. Active-duty troops, guard members, they're next in line to feel the fallout. They are set to miss their first paycheck on Wednesday. Wednesday. That is unless the government reopens by then.

But military families, they make up the backbone of this country. They're sacrificed for our freedoms. It is -- it's immeasurable. And I'm joined by the wife of one military member who's going to talk about how this shutdown is impacting them.

Heather Campbell is with me now. Heather, thank you for being here because I want people to really understand what the experience of some is. I mean, you worked at a food bank. You lost your job over the summer because of federal funding cuts. Can you tell me what the last even few months have been like for you and your family?

HEATHER CAMPBELL, MILITARY SPOUSE: Yes, thank you for having me on and giving me an opportunity to share the story of my family and so many of the families in my community, the military community.

For us specifically with the loss of our second income, that created a lot more stress in our budget and how we're making those day-to-day decisions and any buffer or cushion that might be there for those emergency things like car repairs or two kids in braces or the cost of goods, inflation, tariffs, all of those things.

That cushion kind of went away. It fully went away and really created stress for us as I lost my job, as many of my colleagues did as well who worked in federal government or nonprofit areas.

And then now, to know that the one income that we do rely on isn't coming on Wednesday, that's another level of stress that really changes the way that -- that even I'm interacting in my day-to-day. Do I want to go to the grocery store? Do I need to run that errand or can I wait and not spend the gas? Those are all really, uh, day-to-day decisions that we're making. Just in case it doesn't come on Wednesday, how can we prepare for that now?

COATES: And, you know, we have kids, the same age. You have three. I know all the activities that are involved, all that it takes to raise children, as certainly you know as well. The prospect of losing that second income, even for a short period of time, has a lot of stress on the family. You've moved around a lot in the military already. What's this been like for your children? How are they handling all this? CAMPBELL: I think one of the important things to remember is that our -- our military is an all-volunteer force, right? Our men and women who wear the uniform volunteer to do this. They believe in the mission. They believe in serving this country. They take an oath to the Constitution. They believe in what they're doing. Those of us who marry the mission, right? We give our life to it as well. We serve alongside of our service members, and we want to be there to support the mission and support our communities.

But my kids, they didn't sign up for this, they were born into it. I myself was a military kid and now a military spouse. And so, I know intimately what they're going through. I went to seven schools in 12 years.

And to see the heartbreak that my kids go through, the number of schools. My three kids, my oldest is in seventh grade. I've registered them for 10 schools in those seven years. And one of the things that's the best way for them to plug in is getting involved in their school and getting involved in extra curriculars. Chess club, band, tumbling, sports, all of those things are how they build community. That's how they feel like they are not the outsider and how they get welcomed into the place that we live for a year or two years or three years.

And not all of those organizations and those companies and those activities will take an IOU. So, how do I tell my kids that the thing that makes them feel like they belong in their community might be the thing that has to go on our budget for something that they didn't even sign up to do? That's a really, really hard conversation to consider as a parent.

COATES: It brings tears to my eyes because I can imagine what that's like to say that to your children and as a mother trying to prioritize and plan for the future, but knowing full well your children need you now.

[23:09:56]

And, as you know, lawmakers, they are debating how to make sure that military members, the very least, get paid. Some believe there needs to be a standalone bill to make sure families like yours get paid. Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, appears to disagree to that, at least now. Listen to this, please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Open the government, Democrats. That's what this is. We have voted so many times to pay the troops. We've already done it. We did it in the House three weeks ago. The ball is in the court of Senate Democrats right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: This is politics that's happening on the Hill. What do you hear knowing that it's hitting home? CAMPBELL: I think an important thing to remember is that I'm not a politician, I'm a military spouse, and our military and our military members are apolitical.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CAMPBELL: And we cannot be held hostage by these political conversations. What we want to do is show up and serve the mission, the mission that we believe in, the mission that our community is taking an oath to, and serving and doing what we want to do and do it well, and know that we're showing up for the country, and we need the country to show up for us, we need them to have our backs. And paying our service members and all volunteer force, quite frankly, should never be a political conversation at all.

COATES: Heather Campbell, you and your family owe the world nothing. It's us who owes you and the service that you provide. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

COATES: One of the key negotiators in the standoff over the government shutdown is joining me now, Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Democrat from Delaware and member of the Senate banking and commerce committees. Senator, thank you so much for joining.

There is a lot of frustration, as you can imagine. You just heard from, of course, say, a military mom describing what she's enduring. Let's talk about the concerns that members of the military, they could go unpaid starting next week if this shutdown lasts any longer.

What is your reaction to the idea that the White House is ruling out a legislative fix but Trump is saying, as commander-in-chief, he'll take care of it? Do you have any faith that our service members will be paid next week?

SEN. LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER (D-DE): Well, know, first of all, uh, thank you for having me. And secondly, thank you for uplifting the stories of families who are really being impacted at this very moment.

I think a lot of times, you know, when you are literally on the Senate floor, we're having conversations and we have been having conversations because people's healthcare is at risk, jobs have been at risk really since day one of this administration, costs have gone up for food, for energy, for rent.

And so, these are real concerns for real families, and we face them right here in Delaware. And so, it has been, uh, vitally important to me and to our Democratic Caucus to say to our Republican colleagues, come to the table. There has to be a sense of urgency. This is not business as usual. And so, from day one, we've seen families, um, just be in jeopardy.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

BLUNT ROCHESTER: And so, uh, that family, just like the one who spoke, there was a military wife who spoke directly to Speaker Johnson this week --

COATES: Yes.

BLUNT ROCHESTER: -- on C-SPAN.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

BLUNT ROCHESTER: And I'm like if you're not going to listen to us as Democrats, listen to your constituents because red states, blue states, everyone is going to be impacted by not only the cuts to healthcare but also to the service interruptions and the military families as well as those who serve us in -- in government. So, come to the table.

COATES: And yet you know that Republicans -- well, House Speaker Mike Johnson putting the blame on you and Democrats, colleagues of yours as well. They say the party needs to support the funding bill the House passed last month. Is the onus on Democrats? Who is to blame? I'm assuming you don't think it is the Democrats.

BLUNT ROCHESTER: Well, first of all, you know, my constituents aren't really asking about blame. They're saying, fix this, get something done. And as a person who came from the House to the Senate, I've never seen anything like this.

COATES: Hmm.

BLUNT ROCHESTER: I was actually thinking before we started to talk that the House Republican leadership, we -- we have a recess period in August where you get to go and be with your constituents. They left early, they left in July, then maybe worked 10 days in September and none in October. And so, they are literally missing an action. And you can't fault the Democrats when you have the House, you have the Senate, and you have the White House.

COATES: And yet, senator, during this shutdown and as of tonight, more than 4,000 federal workers have been laid off.

[23:15:03]

And I want to play for you what the president of United States had to say about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): How many layoffs have you authorized for this first round and from which agencies?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It will be Democrat-oriented because we figure -- you know, they started this thing, so they should be Democrat-oriented. It'll be a lot, and we'll announce the numbers over the next couple of days. But it'll be a lot of people. All because of the Democrats.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: I mean, just the phrase Democrat-oriented, knowing full well that federal employees, the Hatch Act alone tells you, senator, that they're not supposed to be intersecting with politics. They work for the American people. And yet they are now, according to the president, going to be punished by the perception of what Democrats are doing in office? What is your reaction to the president saying that?

BLUNT ROCHESTER: I think it's unconscionable. I think, you know, even Republicans who voted for him probably did not expect this. And from day one, let's not forget, these firings, these pauses and funding, all of these things began from the very beginning of this administration as part of Project 2025.

So, they're throwing -- it's almost like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what will stick. One minute they say it's undocumented individuals that are eligible, which we know that was a lie. They're not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare. They can't buy into the ACA marketplaces. It's like throwing stuff at the wall. But the problem is these are real lives, these are our constituents. They're Democrats, Republicans, independents. People are being hurt.

COATES: Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester, thank you.

BLUNT ROCHESTER: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead tonight, a new wrinkle in the indictment against Letitia James. What Attorney General Pam Bondi supposedly didn't know is raising eyebrows. Plus, this flew under the radar this week. But DOJ, they've got a new watchdog. The Question is, will he be able to do his job? And later, new insight into President Trump's health after the White House released details from his physical today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So, where's our (INAUDIBLE) when you need to talk about things that make you go, hmm? Two sources tell CNN that President Trump's handpicked prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, who already indicted Comey and just indicted Letitia James yesterday, didn't give a heads up to the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi.

Apparently, Bondi was caught off guard by Lindsey Halligan's indictment of Letitia James. We're told Halligan didn't speak with other leaders at DOJ headquarters. She didn't tell them about putting the case even before a grand jury. Nothing. Things that make this former prosecutor go, hmm.

Looking at the org chart at DOJ, the U.S. attorneys, they answer to the attorney general. Now, run-of-the-mill cases, the low-profile ones, you don't bother the attorney general. But a high-profile case? You better keep them in the loop.

But an indictment-based case of a sitting attorney general who happens to be the president of United States' political foe, who he wants to see indicted? Uh, mum is not the word. It would have been flagged and fast to the highest levels of the department. It's especially curious even given CNN's previous reporting that Bondi thought the case against James was weak. But there's a possibility she really didn't know.

I want to bring in Mark Greenblatt. He's a former inspector general of the Interior Department who was fired by Trump in January. First of all, there is a possibility, given the fact that people have accused Pam Bondi of getting a directive from the president to indict, that that sort of chain of directives was broken if she was never told anything. Could actually undermine James's vindictive prosecution claim, right? But does that sound curious to you that she wouldn't have been told?

MARK GREENBLATT, FORMER INSPECTOR GENERAL OF INTERIOR DEPARTMENT FIRED BY TRUMP: Yes, absolutely. I've worked in four different federal agencies, including the Department of Justice. I was never a prosecutor. I was in the Department of Justice overseeing folks who were investigators and prosecutors there as part of the inspector general's office.

And in no situation in any of those four agencies we have a matter of such significance not go to the top of the agency. And that just seems very strange to me, that the attorney general would not be informed or the deputy attorney general, someone of that stature, about something of this high profile.

COATES: Sometimes, it might raise the eyebrows of an I.G., for example.

GREENBLATT: It does.

COATES: There's a new one in town. There's a new acting I.G. that was named just last week. There has been a lot of firings, a lot of questionable prosecutions, at least in the court of public opinion. How difficult is this job for the new I.G. now?

GREENBLATT: It's -- there's no question it's going to be difficult. I mean, the I.G. jobs are normally difficult just in regular scenario. But now, I think with, as you mentioned, the removals of me and 17 other IGs over the past nine months, it's -- the temperature has certainly increased.

And I'm concerned that IGs -- you know, there was a New York Times article about the fear in the I.G. community about conducting material substantive oversight. And I think we as American citizens have to just pray to God that those folks continue to do their jobs on a day- to-day basis, looking -- you know, conducting fair, objective, independent oversight over their agencies.

[23:24:58]

And I will say this about the acting I.G. at DOJ, the new one who just came in this past week. He is -- you know, he is -- he is oriented in the right way. I worked with him very, very closely at the Department of Justice, OIG. He is great.

COATES: I want to talk about Homan and the investigation that apparently was dropped for the border czar. Remember, this is the $50,000 cash in a Cava bag of some -- some claim that they say happened in exchange for a promise to help businessmen get government contracts if Trump won. He denies any of this has happened. But those men were apparently FBI informants. The fact that the I.G. would normally be looking at something like this, what are the hurdles to even do that now?

GREENBLATT: Yeah, in any other federal agency, the I.G., this would be a prime subject matter for the I.G. to look at. But the Department of Justice is the only one that has a unique carveout. And what that does is, for prosecutors and investigators doing their jobs as prosecutors and investigators, any kind of allegations about that go to the Office of Professional Responsibility, not the OIG.

COATES: What's the risk of that?

GREENBLATT: Yeah, the problem with that is twofold. One is the OPR, the Office of Professional Responsibility, reports to the attorney general. So, in this situation, if you're looking at misconduct or allegations of misconduct by the attorney general or the deputy attorney general, someone in the political sphere, then you essentially have the attorney general investigating herself, whereas with the inspector general, it's independent and they don't report. You know, they can report directly to Congress. They aren't muzzled in any way. That's the fear with OPR.

The other thing is transparency. The OIG puts out all of their reports and basically shows all of the information related to a specific matter so the American people, Congress, media can look at that and determine what they -- you know, they come to their own --

COATES: Conclusion, yeah.

GREENBLATT: Exactly.

COATES: Really important. You've got a great op-ed talking about and explaining all this. Mark Greenblatt, thank you for your insight.

GREENBLATT: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: So, now to that quick update on President Trump's health. He got a physical today, and we just got the readout from the president's doctor. He says Trump got the flu and COVID boosters ahead of some international travel. He underwent advanced imaging, lab testing, and preventative health assessments. His vision says that he's in excellent "overall health." That's a quote. It says that his cardiac age is 14 youngers -- 14 years younger, excuse me, than his actual age.

Up next, Idaho, famous for its potatoes and now almost famous for its Qatari Air Force facility? Wait till you see the America First freak out over this one. Plus, the incredibly smart tactic by the woman who just won the Nobel Peace Prize that President Trump so coveted. Josh Rogan, Douglas Brinkley with me on set next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, some of the president's fiercest supporters are furious over this announcement from Secretary Pete Hegseth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I'm also proud that today, we're announcing our signing a letter of acceptance to build a Qatari Emiri Air Force facility at the Mountain Home Air Base in Idaho. The location will be host to contingent of Qatari F-15s and pilots to enhance our combined training, increase lethality, interoperability.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, Hegseth, they're announcing plans for Qatar to have an Air Force training facility on U.S. soil. But as the backlash mounted, he later clarified, "Qatar will not have their own base in the United States nor anything like a base. We control the existing base like we do with all partners."

But the damage has been done in the extreme corners of MAGA world. Take Laura Loomer, for example. She tweeted up a storm, calling the move -- quote -- "Un-effing-believable," and later adding, "I don't know who told President Trump this was a good idea, but it has made people not want to vote."

With me now, lead global security analyst for the Washington Post Intelligence, Josh Rogin. I'm also joined by presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. So good to have both of you here. Talk to me about this, Josh. I mean, they're saying that this is a routine agreement with Qatar, isn't it?

JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: Yeah. There -- there's a long history of U.S. defense cooperation agreements with lots of different partners where they buy something from us, we help them train on that something, we do that in America, and we do that on U.S. bases. It should be non-controversial, actually, Laura. It should be pretty standard and pretty routine.

The problem here is twofold. One is that some parts of the MAGA base, like Laura Loomer, are Islamophobic and hate Qatar for lot of reasons that have nothing to do with this space, and they're going to attack anything that has to do with Qatar. But what she said is that no Islamic country should have any presence on U.S. bases, which is the definition of Islamophobia.

And then the second problem is that the Trump family has a long history of quid pro quo deals with the Qataris, including the plane, including the Trump golf course that's going to be built in Qatar, including the $1.5 billion that the Qatari Investment Authority dumped into Jared Kushner's firm. And when you have that kind of corruption, when you have that kind of sort of relationship, it's impossible to know where the personal interests and the national interests begin and end.

[23:34:54]

So, for some valid reasons, there are concerns because we don't really know how much of Trump's love of Qatar is related to his real desire for Qatar to really know how to fly those F-15s so that they can work with us in the war on terror or whatever and how much is just quid pro quo.

COATES: We're talking, Douglas, about what that -- that impact is. I mean, that's covering a lot of the reaction, obviously. Can you explain a little bit about what the impact of that will be?

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, um, I think part of it was the fact that Israel had to just bomb Qatar, right? I mean, to kill Hamas. So, when we hear about Qatar in the news, we're not sure where they are. Now, if you go there or you go there, we see how modern it is and what an important strategic ally that country is for the United States with the Persian Gulf Middle East.

And to his point, Josh's point, um, Idaho's, you know, mountain, the whole mountain range there in Idaho, it does this a lot. Singapore is there right now training of pilots.

But the rollout came out so clumsily in my mind that people are immediately confused. Does it mean we're allowing, you know, Qatar into a base in the United States in southern Idaho or does it not? No, it means they're training with U.S. Air Force.

COATES: Not in a vacuum because this announcement came weeks after Trump signed that executive order that guaranteed Qatar security and which is, frankly, a huge commitment to a non-NATO ally. This is a country that Trump was once very highly critical of. I want you to listen to what he said back in 2017.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level. The time had come to call on Qatar to end its funding. They have to end that funding and its extremist ideology.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Quite a different tone now.

ROGIN: Right. I mean, this was a time when Saudi Arabia and Qatar were at loggerheads and Trump was siding with Saudi Arabia, and then the Qataris bailed Jared Kushner out of a very failed investment in 666, one of the buildings that he had that was falling under, and all of sudden, Qatar was in the good graces of the Trump White House after that. And I can't prove that there was a quid pro quo there, but everybody knows that they paid into the system and then, all of a sudden, they're in Trump's good graces. So, there is a level of, you know, pay for play there that -- it's pretty obvious. Everyone can see it.

At the same time, sometimes, that leads Trump to make decisions that are also happened to be accidentally good. And the fact is that we have a huge base in Qatar. They play a role in dealing with a lot of these organizations like Hamas and the Taliban that America can't deal with directly. But we need somebody to do that because, otherwise, we wouldn't have the deal that we had today.

So, I'm not saying Qatar is perfect. I'm not saying that any of our partners or allies are perfect. But the -- what you see in 2017 to where we are now is partly because Trump and his team realized that the Qataris are valuable partners and partly because they paid him off. And both of those things are true at the same time.

COATES: Let's talk about the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm fascinated by the run-up to it and, of course, who actually got it as well. It went to the Venezuelan opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado. And she dedicated the prize to Trump. Listen to how he described their phone call earlier, Doug.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The person who actually got the Nobel Prize called today, called me and said, I'm accepting this in honor of you because you really deserved it. A very nice thing to do. I didn't say then give it to me, though.

(LAUGHTER)

I think she might have. She was very nice. And I've been -- you know, I've been helping her along the way. They need a lot of help in Venezuela. It's a basic disaster. So -- and you could also say it was given out for '24. And I was running for office in '24.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Sort of posting a flag of where he thinks maybe 2025 is the year he would join four U.S. presidents who have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Jimmy Carter getting it after he left office as well, though. Contextualize this moment for us, that he did not get it this time.

BRINKLEY: Well, I think he's the one who's promoting himself, right? And there was no chance in hell he was going to get it.

COATES: You don't think so?

BRINKLEY: No. You could look at a first term with the Abraham Accords if he wanted to argue it. But right now, the big moment, they already had decided and voted before the peace ceasefire between Israel and Gaza right now. So, he couldn't be a beneficiary of that. But he is running for it for the following year. But nobody I've ever seen announces they deserve a Nobel over and over again. It's just seemingly unseemly if you're even a touch old school.

COATES: Hmm.

BRINKLEY: I mean, the president that won it, Theodore Roosevelt for mediating the Russian-Japanese war.

[23:40:00]

Woodrow Wilson, you know, the end of World War I. And Barack Obama was more of an aspirational one when he won. But it makes no sense that Trump would have been on the short list this year, but he's playing it for next year. And Ms. Machado did a smart job of flattering him to keep U.S.-Venezuelan relations from her perspective on track. Yeah.

ROGIN: I don't think he's going to get it next year either. I think the Nobel committee sent a very clear signal here. Two signals, actually. One, self-promoting yourself for the Nobel Prize doesn't work. Okay? They're not going to be bullied into it. They're not going to be shamed into it. They're going to choose who they want to choose.

Two, by signaling -- by choosing the Venezuelan opposition leader, what they signaled is that their values are about promoting people who stand up to tyranny on behalf of democracy. Okay? That's not Trump's values, no matter what he wants to say about him, making eight peace deals, which he didn't actually even make. He does not believe that democracy and freedom and human rights promotion are the things that he wants to be about or that America should be about. He's on the other side.

And even in Venezuela, he's had a very mixed policy, okay? He's engaging with Maduro, and he's killing fishermen and drug dealers. But none of that has anything to do with Democratic aspirations for the people of Venezuela. The Nobel committee is saying, we support people who are struggling for freedom and democracy and human rights against dictators. That's not Trump. So, even next year, Trump is not going to be in line for that. That's my prediction.

COATES: Doug, quickly on this point. The fact that he's not a part of this exclusive club and the role of history, how does this impact his ability to be a leader of the so-called free world?

BRINKLEY: Well, look, very few presidents win the Nobel, and you do for a really big or extraordinary reason. And they make mistakes in our history, too. Henry Kissinger got a Nobel for his negotiation during the Vietnam peace that, you know, people now say was a mistake.

There is no way in hell Donald Trump is going to get a Nobel Prize for doing what? For, you know, out tweeting or Truth Social, bigotry or dividing people, hate language. It wouldn't be a natural fit with the Nobel. But he doesn't seem to get that. He just sees it's like getting his own reality T.V. show where I deserve an Oscar, you know, I deserve an Emmy, I deserve this award because I'm the greatest. But they're a lot smarter than that in Norway.

COATES: Well, others are touting it. Netanyahu just posting it yesterday, about this very issue. I wonder what will happen in the future. Josh, Doug, thank you both.

A trillion bucks wiped out after Trump stuns markets with a brand-new tariff assault on China, one that even he admits will be potentially painful for Americans. Our favorite economist, Justin Wolfers, is set to explain it all next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, the trade war with China is back in full force. The president today announcing he'll impose new 100% tariffs against China beginning November 1st. Quote -- "Over and above any tariff that they are currently paying." That would bring the total tariff on China to 130%.

Why is Trump doing this? Well, he says it has to do with new export restrictions China just placed on critical resources known as rare earths. And markets tumbled this morning as soon as Trump hinted at these tariffs.

Just watch how it played out in real time. The Dow held steady right until Trump threatened these tariffs on Truth Social at around 11 a.m., and fell nearly 900 points right after that very post.

So, how will this play out? I got to ask our friend, Justin Wolfers, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan. All right, Justin, you got to make this make sense for people. We've got Trump imposing new tariffs on China. How significant is this? Are we -- are we really back here again?

JUSTIN WOLFERS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS & PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: I can't help anyone make sense of this, mate. This is nonsense. And yes, you've seen this movie before.

COATES: Hmm.

WOLFERS: Adding 100% tariff to our existing 30% tariff puts us at 130% tariff. And at that point, you may as well just say eleven-ty bazillion (ph). That just says we're not going to send boats back and forward. There'll be no trade with China.

And let me tell you, there are two sets of countries that'll hurt, the United States and China. You can't turn a big boat like the American economy round just overnight because the president is feeling bad about himself. So, look, the markets are reacting that strongly because they think this is very bad news.

And the other thing to realize is, in fact, Trump's tariff threat today, there's roughly a 50-50 chance that the Supreme Court rules the whole thing illegal and unconstitutional in a few weeks' time. And so, the markets reacted that negatively, even though there's a 50% chance that the president won't be able to follow through. COATES: Well, talk to me about it, for some people who don't have any idea what the significance of a rare earth element might mean. We've heard this term time and again. It's what Trump is pointing to that China has new expert controls on. What does it mean when it comes to global trade, these rare earth elements?

WOLFERS: I've got to tell you my most important qualification. My grandma was a geologist, Laura.

[23:50:00]

But I did terrible in high school chemistry.

(LAUGHTER)

But as an economist, I can tell you that there's a couple of minerals out there often used in strong magnets. They're used in computers, they're used in cell phones, they're used in drones, they're used in electric vehicles, they're used in defense equipment. So, throughout large tracts, particularly of manufacturing, and if you don't have them, you can't do business.

Now, they're called rare earth minerals. They're not actually that rare, but they're really hard to get, they're really dirty to get, they're really expensive to get, and most of them are being gotten by the Chinese at the moment.

If China cuts us off on the rare earth minerals, and they haven't said they'd do that yet, if they were, that would cause a bunch of the factories near me, I live in Michigan, a bunch of the car factories would probably have to shut down within a few weeks --

COATES: Hmm.

WOLFERS: -- and you'd see ripple effects through the rest of the economy. So, I liked it back when we didn't have to know what rare earth minerals were, that we could just buy them and they'd happily sell them, but that's not the world we're in right now.

COATES: So, do you expect some whiplash at some point in time where Trump once again reverses course on China with this?

WOLFERS: I mean, he's got one of two choices. He either plays the TACO card. TACO, Trump always chickens out. Or he plunges the U.S. economy into a recession. I don't know which one he's going to do.

But I think there's something more fundamental here, Laura. Six months ago, you might have thought, well, I've got a good business, we have to rely on China for some inputs, maybe there'll be the occasional disruption from Washington, but it's a good business, I'm going to keep going. So far, we're not even at the end of the first Trump administration. He has effectively turned the boats around twice.

And so even if he sits down and has a meeting and says everything is better again in two weeks' time, this feels a lot like my middle school romance life where you'd be on with someone one week and you'd be off the next. And eventually, they'd understand that you weren't to be trusted, and they'd go and form a different and hopefully more lasting relationship elsewhere. And so, I think the American businesses --

(LAUGHTER)

-- that are reliant on China -- Laura, this is very serious. I think American --

COATES: Well, then, don't make middle school jokes, Justin.

(LAUGHTER)

WOLFERS: American businesses reliant on China can't forget the fact that this now has happened twice within a year. So, for the next three years, there's going to be this constant threat over the head of any American business that does rely on having reliable access to trade with other countries.

COATES: Well, the president of the Yale Budget Lab, Natasha Sarin, wrote an op-ed in "The New York Times." I'm sure you've seen it. She argues the A.I. boom is masking some real problems with the economy, writing -- quote -- "The situation is worse than having all your economic eggs in one basket. It's closer to putting all of your eggs in one basket and stomping on all the other baskets." How serious is this concern that A.I. is creating this mirage in the economy?

WOLFERS: So, let me just explain what it is Natasha is worried about there. The economic data right now don't look too bad. They're not great, but they're not terrible. But if that was just one economy, you'd feel like okay about it. But, in fact, the U.S. is two economies. There's an enormous A.I. boom going on, huge investments, particularly in data centers. If you took that out of the numbers and you just looked at the non-A.I. parts of the economy, It's basically flatlining. We're on the cusp of a non-A.I. recession.

So, you know, the administration gets to say the economy is doing okay despite all our policies and -- well, because of our policies, but actually it's despite their policies. We don't know if the A.I. boom will continue. I'm not saying it's good or bad that A.I. boom doesn't create a lot of jobs because if you've ever gone inside a data center, you don't see a lot of work, what you see is a lot of machines.

So, I'm a little worried about -- I think there's every reason to be worried about what the administration is doing to this economy. And we are, in some sense, lucky to be held up by A.I. right now.

COATES: Well, students are lucky to have you as their professor. Lucky to have you tonight. Justin Wolfers, thank you so much.

WOLFERS: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Up next, on this Friday night, my conversation with actor Wendell Pierce ahead of a brand-new episode of "New Orleans: Soul of a City."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: New Orleans is renowned as the birthplace of many musical genres, rhythm and blues, rock and roll and, of course, jazz. CNN's Original Series, "New Orleans: Soul of a City," continues this Sunday and looks at second lines parades, a tradition at the very heart of New Orleans's music. Actor and New Orleans native, Wendell Pierce, broke down what the second line really means when we sat down together. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WENDELL PIERCE, ACTOR: Jazz is emblematic of the American aesthetic demonstrated --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PIERCE: -- in split-second timing.

COATES: Yeah.

PIERCE: It is -- we are a nation of laws, but you can be an individual within those laws. And that's the same thing with jazz. You have the framework of the song, but within that, you can improvise.

COATES: Hmm.

PIERCE: So, it's -- the -- the literal creation of jazz is the American aesthetic on display.

COATES: And roots in New Orleans.

PIERCE: And its roots are in New Orleans. And that's what -- that's what the second line is all about. The second line is not only this joyful parade, an expression of that music, an expression of people's joys and fears and sadness in a jazz funeral, and then the elation of celebrating that person's life. It is also literally coming from social aid and pleasure clubs. We understand the pleasure part. You see the parade, you hear the music.

COATES: Hmm.

PIERCE: You also -- but people forget there's the social aid part. It came out of segregated communities that were redlined by insurance companies, that could not get insurance here, burial plots, couldn't get into hospitals.

[00:00:04]

So, they formed these social aid and pleasure clubs, pooled their money into that club and say when your mama gets sick, we'll take care of you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Be sure to tune in a new episode of "New Orleans: Soul of a City." It airs Sunday at 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific on CNN. Hey, thank you all so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.