Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Health Care Cliff Nears As Government Shutdown Drags On; New Plan Emerges To Get Key Epstein Vote Sworn In; Jack Smith Speaks Out In Rare Interview Amid Trump's Revenge. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired October 14, 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]

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Tonight, the shutdown clock ticks up with the countdown to higher health cost is closing in, including for states that voted for Trump. Will Congress find any way out? Plus, she is the newly-elected congresswoman who would trigger a vote on a number of things, including the Epstein files. Speaker Mike Johnson is refusing to swear her in. The Arizona attorney general now has a plan to try and enforce his hand. She's going to join me tonight to explain how. And Jack Smith is speaking out for the first time since he resigned from the DOJ and drops the word ludicrous. Guess who he's talking about. I'll tell you tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

All right, well, let me ask you a question. What do you think this shutdown is really about? I mean, you're hearing fancy terms like clean C.R. and that one side is holding the government hostage. You're hearing phrases like Democrat-oriented when it comes to layoffs and furloughs. But what this is and what it's about comes down to really three letters, ACA. I want to tell you, what you're wondering is why this affects, well, Y-O-U.

And forget what's happening inside this beltway. I mean, can we talk about the rest of America for a second? I mean, look at this map. Take a look at it. It shows how many people in each state rely on what's called enhanced premium tax credits for the Affordable Care Act. Remember, those were supposed to lower the costs for people who buy their health insurance through the ACA. They're not permanent. Look at that.

You see Florida? Why is that state the only state in dark red? Well, it's because it has got the highest percentage of people who get those subsidies. More than one in five people in Florida have it.

So, what does that really mean? Well, it means that one of the most Trump-friendly states will now possibly be ground zero for an explosive cost shock if the Obamacare subsidies aren't extended by the end of the year. We're talking about health care premiums doubling or even tripling. I don't mean like tripling eventually or someday. It could happen overnight. So, what's Congress going to do about it?

I'm going talk to a Republican congressman and candidate for Florida governor, Byron Donalds. He certainly knows what's ahead. But he also says that extending the subsidies is not perhaps the way to go. So, what is? I mean, millions of us are all ears tonight. You know I'm no pundit. I'm not going to talk around an issue or the people. I'm not going to give you some composite sketch. I'm going to draw of some person somewhere to try to illustrate my point.

You want to hear some testimony? Well, here it is. One longtime insurance agent telling "The Washington Post" in that state, that he predicts his customers will let their policies lapse when the price hikes become clear. He thinks that Obamacare is flawed, but the rug should not be pulled out from under people.

Now, he's not just an expert, he's also someone who's going to be a victim. It's going to impact his own family. And here are the numbers we're talking about. His wife will go from paying, get this, $500 a month to about $1200, $1200 a month. He says, look, I voted for Trump, I didn't expect this.

So, again, my question, what is Congress going to do about this? The government shut down, check. No one is negotiating, check. No pay checks, check. Why? Some political version of who came first, the chicken or the egg? You go first, and you go first, and you go first.

Republicans want the government reopen, and then they want to talk about the ACA subsidies. Democrats, they want to talk subsidies, and then we'll talk reopening the government. When bills come due and open enrollment starts in what, two weeks? It's going to go from a calendar issue to it's complicated.

And, you know, it is complicated. The subsidies that keep these premiums down, they cost the federal government a lot of money. Look at that. A lot of money. The Congressional Budget Office says that it would cost $350 billion over the next decade to extend these permanently.

But if not the ACA, then what? Twenty-four million Americans relying for their coverage. And we have seen this movie before, haven't we? We've seen like -- what? Seventy times before?

[23:05:00]

And that's just an estimate of how many times the ACA has been tried to be weakened or repealed or rewritten or replaced. It has been a refrain for years, going all the way back to when it was actually first passed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY, FORMER UTAH SENATOR: It's important for us to repeal and replace Obamacare.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We are going to repeal and replace Obamacare.

MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: First order of business is to repeal and replace Obamacare.

KEVIN MCCARTHY, FORMER SPEAKER OF UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FORMER CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVE: We'll continue to make sure we keep our promise to repeal and replace Obamacare to make sure insurance costs are lowered.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And even the last time Republicans controlled the White House and the House and the Senate, there was no agreement on what to replace it with. Remember that thumbs down moment from the late John McCain in 2017? The GOP certainly does. The Democrats do, too. But the GOP could not legislatively reinvent the wheel. That's why the ACA is still the law of the land. Yet in the years since, Trump has repeatedly dangled some alternative. But the only thing consistent about the plan is that we have not seen it concretely.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're also going to fight to give much better health care than what you have right now. This is a newer subject, but Obamacare is a disaster.

I have concepts of a plan. I'm not president right now. But if we come up with something, I would only change it if we come up with something that's better and less expensive.

Obamacare stinks. It's lousy. There are better answers. If we come up with a better answer, I would present that answer to Democrats and everybody else, and I do something about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Better. Less expensive. Okay. I'm looking at the same calendar as all of you. I'm wondering the same thing you are. If there is enough time left on the clock to make a play. And it seems to have come down to just a single question. You got a better idea?

Let me ask one of the president's closest allies. A man full of ideas, Republican Congressman Byron Donalds. He is also running to be the next governor of Florida where, as I have outlined for you, the stakes are particularly high. Congressman, welcome. I mean, this figure, one in five Floridians could see their health care premiums rise. Are you okay with this idea of Floridians, let alone more Americans, paying more for health care?

REP. BYRON DONALDS (R-FL): Uh, no, I'm not, but we have to acknowledge the reality that Obamacare has led us to this position that we're in right now. Even when you go back to when it was originally passed, we were promised that premiums were going to go down. That never happens. Premiums have risen substantially since it was passed.

And that is even before you get to the deductibles. The deductibles now under Obamacare are so high. People really don't even think that they -- they are -- they're able to hit those deductibles. So, it has really become a mirage. When you bring the tax credits in, what the Democrats did when they have full control back in 2021 is they put these tax credits in because of COVID-19 --

COATES: Uh-hmm. DONALDS: -- because people weren't working. But then what also occurred is the co-structure around Obamacare became that much more expensive. If the Democrats were so concerned about, uh, insurance premiums, they could have made them permanent back in 2021. They chose not to.

COATES: So, they now make them permanent, congressman?

DONALDS: They chose for them to expire. At this point in time, they chose --

COATES: Should they now make them permanent, though?

DONALDS: Well, let me be clear. They chose for them expire today to wield them as a political weapon. Now, let's talk to the shutdown. To the shutdown --

COATES: But wait, before we do, congressman --

DONALDS: -- we're not going to negotiate anything around insurance premiums during the shutdown. We're not going do that.

COATES: I don't want to cut you off, but I do want to ask the question again. Should they make it permanent now, these extensions? Because, as I mentioned, the amount of money that people are talking about and what could increase, and I take your larger point, the expense that people are feeling around premiums broadly, but if the alternative is no insurance, no health care, and perhaps urgent care or the emergency and beyond, should these be made permanent? Are you supportive of that?

DONALDS: No. This premium -- these premium tax credits, the extended ones around Obamacare, should not be made permanent. And let me also be clear about this: Obamacare was created around premium subsidies at the beginning. So, what was done during COVID under the Biden administration was an expansion of the existing premium tax credits that were already built into the original law.

So, you have to look at it this way: There were tax credits already, and then -- and then what they did under Biden is they expanded them and built them even higher to hide the true cost. I don't think that the American people should bear that burden today, but we have to repeal and replace this program. It has never worked.

COATES: With what?

DONALDS: The costs have gotten out of control --

COATES: With what?

DONALDS: -- and the American people feel it.

COATES: So, I --

DONALDS: Number one, I think the overall --

COATES: But with what? Hold on.

[23:10:00]

Wait. Congressman, I'm talking. I know we get cut off --

DONALDS: Sure.

COATES: -- because, obviously, we're remote and we're talking over each other. I don't mean to do that, but I do want to be very, very clear to the American people. Replace it with what? And do you have the time? Given that there is right now the heat felt by Americans, particularly federal workers, but also Americans facing this end of the year ending and expirations, is there the time to replace it in a way that does not impact every day Americans who need the health care?

DONALDS: Well, a couple of things. One, you can replace it with getting rid of a lot of the regulatory requirements of the Affordable Care Act. What Obamacare did, it basically required every American in the exchange to be able to cover just about every medical procedure possible.

One of the big flaws is that young people do not actually take these plans the way they originally said that they would because the plans are too expensive. So, young people are saying, I'll pay the fine, I'm not going to go and pay these extraordinary premiums and even higher deductibles for health insurance policy, I'm not going to touch.

So, you have to actually get rid of the regulatory burdens. You have to actually design individual plans that scale to the need of the people who need them. If you did that, you'd actually probably get more people in these marketplace exchanges because the premium burden would be lower.

Second big thing is about -- is about creating plans around critical care are -- or -- or your -- your major medical needs that might happen into the future as opposed to a broad-based health insurance plan.

Third thing that was discussed a couple of years ago, the plan that actually Republicans did put forward but John McCain killed it in the Senate. Let's be clear, what that was structured around was more critical pools run at state levels as opposed to one federal pool which, obviously, is not working. And so --

COATES: Bring me back in 2025.

DONALDS: -- there are definite strategies that Republicans have.

COATES: Okay.

DONALDS: We can deliver that for the American people.

COATES: Well, frankly, if you could do that, that would be, I think, music to a number of people's ears who are thinking not about the McCain days or the Biden years or anything before, thinking about right now. And in this year, 2025, with a government shutdown in full effect, it sounds like to create the plan you're talking about would require some time. So, is there a plan to extend the Obamacare subsidies for that amount of time to have those conversations and have the fulsome result you're talking about?

DONALDS: Well, let me be clear on this one. Republicans are united on this front. We're not going to be negotiating with the democrats around the government shutdown. Number one, we don't think that's appropriate. Number two, if you're going to talk about the ACA subsidies, that's something that's done through budget reconciliation which is mandatory spending. The Democrats now arguing for making them permanent. They never made that argument at any point until they shut down the government.

So, let's be clear on this one: The Democrats first shut down the government down, then they came out saying they wanted them to be permanent over the long term. They never -- they never advocated for that before. So, they're moving the goalposts.

But our position is we are not going to negotiate with them because right now, what's happening is the military -- it wasn't for President Trump moving money around to pay our troops. Our military officers, men and women, wouldn't be getting their paychecks because of five Democrat senators who want to hold the government hostage, frankly, to prove that they're tough enough to stand up to President Trump, not on any substantive spending matter in front of the federal government.

So, our position is vote to reopen the government, and then we can have those negotiations. It's actually a different process than what the continuing resolution is about.

COATES: All right. Let me play. Say the Democrats came to the table and said, fine, we will reopen the government. Let's now negotiate on the point you're talking about. Tell me what happens for Floridians and Americans who are using the ACA on, say, December 31st. That's when this will set to expire. So, tell me what would be the plan.

Assuming Democrats did come to the table in the manner that you're speaking of, which they think that you guys are moving the goal close to not negotiating, but say they did what you wanted to do and came back and reopened the government, are Republicans prepared to negotiate in good faith about these extensions and for how long?

DONALDS: Well, Republicans have always been willing to negotiate in good faith with the Democrats because we don't have these poison pills in our negotiations. I do want to be --

COATES: But they don't believe you.

DONALDS: -- transparent and clear on that. Everybody -- well, but also, you have to understand, what they're trying to do politically is find a win because they've been losing since last November. They have no wins. They have no strategy. They're looking for something to cling on to. And I want to stress to the people, not just in Florida, but around the country, the Democrats could have made this permanent back in 2021.

[23:15:03]

They didn't. They could have negotiated this when, um -- when Chuck Schumer was Senate leader and -- and Joe Biden was still president even though Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson were speakers of the House. They didn't. They put a poison pill for the end of 2025 on purpose because they wanted to wield a political weapon.

That being said, all we're saying is you have five Democrat senators who are refusing to reopen the government. There are three Democrat senators that voted with Republicans to keep the government open, but the Democrat leadership under Chuck Schumer is refusing because he was to look tough to the radical left. That's not appropriate for the American people. So, what our position is clear, reopen the government, and then we'll talk.

COATES: Well, given what you described, it sounds as though the trust is fundamentally broken down such that negotiating or believing the other side would actually come to the table appropriately isn't there.

And I do wonder, given statements from your colleagues like Marjorie Taylor Greene and others, that you seem to have a great deal of faith in your Republican colleagues to come to the table and come correct but coulda, shoulda, woulda for Democrats is not the plan, is that the only recourse or Republicans have a plan to actually come to the table along with Democrats, assuming they do what you want and come back to the table? What is the plan for people who are with the ACA who need to have the subsidies remain at the lower cost?

DONALDS: Laura, what I will tell you is examine how Donald Trump has led the country since he came back to the White House. Things that people said were impossible and would never happen have actually occurred under his leadership.

COATES: Hmm.

DONALDS: We saw the biggest one just happened the other day with respect to peace of the in the Middle East and also all of the hostages alive and then coming home.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

DONALD: So, I would tell people who are thinking about the ACA, Democrats need to reopen the government. When you do that -- Donald Trump is a realist. He understands what's happening in this country. He is leading all Americans. He has done a great job. But we have to negotiate on even terms. You can't use the government shutdown as a tool to extend subsidies. Subsidies, by the way, the Democrats could have extended permanently when they were in charge, and they chose not to --

COATES: I hear your point.

DONALDS: -- to create this political environment. It's simply not right.

COATES: I hear your point. The president does deserve credit for what happened in Israel and Gaza and the return of the hostages. But I was asking about Congress, the co-equal branch of government. Congress and Byron Donalds, thank you so much.

DONALDS: Thank you.

COATES: You've no doubt heard a lot about the delay in getting Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva sworn in. She is the last signature needed on a number of things, including to force a vote on the Epstein files. Well, one person has had it with Speaker Johnson's stonewalling, and she's now about to take matters into her own hands and into the courts. The attorney general of Arizona is standing by to reveal her plan, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CHANTING)

COATES: Twenty-one days since her election, Arizona Congresswoman- elect Adelita Grijalva took her demands to be sworn in straight to House Speaker Mike Johnson's office tonight. Grijalva says there's only one reason she has not been seated. Epstein. She would be the 218th vote to release all unclassified Epstein docs. House Speaker Mike Johnson, he denies that's the reason.

But now, there's a mysterious twist in the Epstein saga. It's related to his longtime associate and convicted sex trafficker, Ghislaine Maxwell. "The Wall Street Journal" reports the low-security federal prison in Texas where Maxwell is staying was locked down while she met visitors in the prison's chapel. Who was Ghislaine meeting with? That's the mystery.

It's one that House members like Grijalva would want to investigate. But she can't until she's sworn into Congress. And now, Arizona's attorney general is vowing to take legal action against Speaker Johnson, writing to the House speaker, Arizona's right to a full delegation -- quote -- "may not be delayed or used as leverage in negotiations about unrelated legislation."

And the Arizona attorney general, Kris Mayes, joins me now. Attorney General, thank you for being here. Why -- why do you believe that House Speaker Johnson is delaying swearing in Grijalva?

KRIS MAYES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA: I mean, it's a great question, Laura. And there's no legitimate reason for Speaker Johnson to delay Representative-elect Grijalva's oath of office. This morning, we certified her election here in Phoenix. So, uh, she should be -- as of this morning, she should be a member of Congress.

And, quite frankly, what's going on here is that the state of Arizona is being deprived of representation. One of our seats in Congress is being deprived of -- to 800,000 people in the state of Arizona. That's a real injury to the state of Arizona, and I'm going to fight it. And I sent a letter, as you know, to the speaker, saying, you know, give us -- give us a date. We want to know when Adelita Grijalva is going to be sworn in.

[23:24:58]

COATES: You've wrote about that very precise notion, the idea of the deprivation to a particular congressional district and Arizona's right to a full delegation. You're taking legal action. You've cited how his staff is given ever-shifting, unsatisfactory, and sometimes absurd stories as to why she could not be sworn in. Talk to me about the action you plan to take if he doesn't respond or even if he does.

MAYES: Yeah, I mean, I -- I really think that we are going to have no other choice, Laura, except to take Speaker Johnson to court if he refuses to respond to us, if he doesn't quickly swear in Adelita Grijalva, again depriving her of the ability to help her constituents.

We've had some flooding out here in Arizona. She has no way to help those people in Southern Arizona who have been impacted by that flooding, so many other things that she can and should be doing as an elected member of Congress.

And so, if I have to, I'll take him to court. You know, again, there's no legitimate reason for him to refuse to swear her in right now. No other reason that I can think of except that perhaps she's the -- the final vote to discharge the Epstein files. And it's not fair for Mike Johnson to be holding the state of Arizona hostage because he doesn't want to release the Epstein files.

COATES: He, of course, says that that is not the motivation. Obviously, you don't buy that, that that's the reason he is withholding this swearing in. But also, the idea of deprivation. I am really curious in terms of, for most people listening, you're the attorney general of your state. You're asking for some legal remedy. What will you tell the courts? Is there justification for why you can bring this action? And can the courts really compel the swearing in or is this leading perhaps to a slap on the policy-based wrist?

MAYES: So, we think the law is very clear here that this -- that depriving a state of the seating of one of our representatives is unconstitutional. This really has not been done before. And the case law in general is with us on this issue.

So, we would be saying to a judge, we'd like a declaratory judgment from you that says, uh, that the speaker has to seat Adelita Grijalva. He has to swear her in. And if he doesn't, then he'll be violating our rights as Arizonans, and they'll be violating the Constitution.

And, you know, we will point out all -- of course, all of those instances, Laura, where he has already sworn in Republican members of Congress, you know, under similar circumstances when Congress was not in session. So, there's absolutely no real reason for him to be doing this, and we're going to stand up for the rights of Arizonans.

COATES: Legally, he may have run out of road. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, thank you.

MAYES: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, one of the top people on President Trump's enemies list now speaking out and defending himself in public. What Special Counsel Jack Smith is saying about the attacks against him and the DOJ, he says, is now unrecognizable. And later, Fox News sticks it to its former employee and tells Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth it won't go along with his new press policy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: The idea that politics would play a role, uh, in big cases like this, uh, it's absolutely ludicrous and it's totally contrary to my experience as a prosecutor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Yep, you recognize him, former Special Counsel Jack Smith standing by the two federal indictments he brought against President Trump that were ultimately dismissed. Smith was responding to the constant attacks from Republicans who accused him of playing politics and weaponizing justice. Instead arguing that's actually what the administration is doing right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMITH: You can't say, I want this outcome, let me throw the rules out. That's why, frankly, you see all these conflicts between the career apolitical prosecutors I worked with, because they're being asked to do things that they think are wrong. And because they're not political people, they're not going to do them.

And I think that explains why you've seen the resignations, you've seen people leave the department. It's not because they're enemies of one administration or the next. They worked through decades for different administrations. It's just they've been doing things apolitically forever. And when they're told, no, you got to get this outcome no matter what, that is so contrary to how we were all raised as prosecutors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But the key point that Smith emphasized, there's nothing wrong with prosecuting people in power. What does matter, though, is why you're doing it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SMITH: The problem is not prosecuting high officials who did something wrong when you do it according to the processes of law in your country. It's the retaliation. That's the problem, and that's the thing that we should be preventing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, Harry Litman.

[23:35:02]

Also here, CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, Elliot Williams. He is also the host of the podcast, "Talking Feds." Of course, I'm talking about Harry Litman. Glad to see him. And glad to see you, Elliot, as well

Let's start with you, Harry, on this point because you heard those comments from Smith, a pretty explicit condemnation of how the DOJ, the Trump DOJ, is operating. This is someone who Republicans argue actually weaponized the department. So, tell me what your reaction has been, the fact that he is speaking and speaking up and in this way.

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: So, as a former DOJ, I find it galling, my reaction to the Republicans, and I'm glad he's speaking up some. Look, this is really straightforward. And there's a way to know who's right and who's wrong here, and that is the facts and the law.

We all saw the conduct that resulted in Smith's, at least its first case. Can you imagine what -- what it would have been if the DOJ had said, uh, a little insurrection, who really cares? That was a case that cried out for prosecution, and the facts and the law bore it out.

And that was -- and so the question is not who talks louder or what Jim Jordan says. And the irony, of course, that makes it even sort of doubly galling is Jordan also says widely what Republicans do, that they are not weaponizing.

And again, it's not hard. Look at the facts. Look at the law. Look at the commands from Donald Trump, prosecute my enemies. And straightforward, they are promoting a kind of collective amnesia or want to win the country. And it's -- it's a very straightforward point. His calm professionalism said.

But, Laura, we all saw it. We know that that wasn't weaponization. It has been pretty clear that this is. Of course, we are going to take that up in the next few weeks.

COATES: Elliot, I want to tell you because what he was describing was essentially people reverse engineering a result. Here is the goal I want. Now, figure out the facts of the evidence I can use to get that conviction. You do see, of course, that Smith is being investigated over --

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah. COATES: -- potential violations of the Hatch Act by the Office of Special Counsel. This is yet another person on the list of people that we know the president takes issue with.

WILLIAMS: Right.

COATES: When you hear about that reverse engineering and thinking about this, what is the likelihood that these could be successful with a jury pool that's obviously watching and a bench that is saying, I see you?

WILLIAMS: Yeah. Who knows what ends up being successful, Laura? I mean, I think the -- the problem and -- the problem that the president and his folks have created is that even cases that might be legitimate --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WILLIAMS: -- they put a cloud over them by talking so much about how they want folks to get prosecuted. So, if you take the investigation into Jim Comey, even if he's guilty, or John Bolton, who might be indicted in the coming days, even if he is guilty and did commit the offenses --

COATES: Tish James. You could add to that.

WILLIAMS: Tish James. All of them. The fact that the -- the president and others in the administration have been so forthright about wanting those folks to be prosecuted taints the cases. And so --

COATES: Is it in short order as well, the timing, the back to back to back?

WILLIAMS: I think the timing and the cum -- and just the cumulative effect of all of them. I think Jack Smith is getting into some of that, that there's nothing wrong with prosecuting prominent people. If Tish James broke the law, if Jim Comey broke the law, fine, they should go to the -- go to jail for it. But the fact that there does appear to be a thumb on the scale from the White House really makes it hard to take any of those cases seriously.

COATES: Let's play what actually Jack Smith had to say about the former FBI director, James Comey, who you know has been indicted. Harry, listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMITH: This latest prosecution of the former director of the FBI, um, you know, there's a process to secure an indictment. But the career prosecutors, the apolitical prosecutors who analyzed this, said there wasn't a case. And so, they brought somebody in who had never been a criminal prosecutor on days' notice to secure an indictment a day before the statute of limitations ended. That just reeks of lack of process.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Part of what Comey is complaining about, too, Harry, is that they believe that the case has got to be dismissed because Lindsey Halligan, who is the U.S. attorney in the EDDA, you are a U.S. attorney as well in different jurisdiction --

LITMAN: Yes.

COATES: -- they believe she has been unlawfully appointed, and they filed this notice of an intent that they plan to make this particular argument. What would they need to prove specifically to be successful there?

LITMAN: Um, can I tell you in a second, I just want to quickly say, as to Elliot's point, a taint or a roof --

COATES: Sure, Harry. Ignore the question I just asked.

LITMAN: Much worse than that.

COATES: No, I want the answer to the question.

LITMAN: It's a constitutional -- okay. I'm sorry.

COATES: I want the answer. Thank you.

LITMAN: All right. Let me go straight to Lindsey Halligan. What they have to prove is that after an interim appointment was completed as it was, the person who -- who was appointed, Lindsey Halligan, was not one of three things, and she really wasn't.

[23:40:06]

It looks to me like a very solid case now typically if they prove in and they say Alina Habba has the same problem as it has been found. But the question would be, what remedy? Can -- can they go back and do it again? Here with Comey, though, they brought it specifically the last day of the statute limitations. If that was a phony signature, who the heck is she on that piece of paper? I think he's got to go free because they cannot reassemble an indictment for someone as to whom the statute has run. So, I think it's pretty strong.

COATES: Harry, Elliot, more to come. Thank you so much.

LITMAN: Thank you very much.

COATES: Still ahead tonight, the president of the Pentagon Press Corps uniting in solidarity against Pete Hegseth's new controversial policy. One that my next guest says won't just be bad for reporters or the people of the press, but actually bad for the Trump administration. You're intrigued, aren't you? Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and columnist Nicholas Kristof will explain, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, it's not every day you see networks like Fox News and Newsmax not only pushed back against the Trump White House, but also side with the very mainstream media they so often denounce. Well, tonight, nearly every major news organization, including CNN, is refusing to sign new rules set forth by Secretary Pete Hegseth restricting what Pentagon journalists can actually report.

Among those rules, require reporters to sign a pledge not to obtain or use any unauthorized material in their reporting, even if the information is unclassified. The Pentagon gave reporters an ultimatum, sign the rules today or surrender your badges tomorrow. And the president liked this plan so much. He suggested the White House press corps could be next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have an option here as to, as you know, the press, years ago, moved into the White House, used to be across the street. We could move them. You're lucky I'm president because we could move them very easily across the street. They used to be there. They would have more room. We have a beautiful, nice space. You could sit all by yourselves and have fun. Instead, you walk around the White House talking to anybody that can breathe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, opinion columnist for "The New York Times," Nicholas Kristof. Nick, you heard Hegseth today. He tried to downplay the backlash, this policy. Listen to how he defended it, though.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It used to be, Mr. President, the press could go anywhere, pretty much anywhere in the Pentagon, the most classified area in the world. Also, that if they sign on to the credentialing, they're not going to try to get soldiers to break the law by giving classified information. So, it's common sense stuff, Mr. President. We're trying to make sure national security is respected, and we're proud of the policy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He says common sense and a good policy, but what are the risks when the Pentagon tries to impose these kinds of restrictions on journalists?

NICHOLAS KRISTOF, OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I mean, what Hegseth said is completely disingenuous. Reporters have not been allowed to go everywhere around the Pentagon. They certainly haven't been allowed to walk into classified briefings, into the tank, things like that.

And, you know, the dispute isn't about publishing classified information. It's about publishing information that is in press releases. You know, they -- essentially, Hegseth would like to restrict us to information that they want released in press releases. We don't want to be stenographers.

And it's particularly disingenuous coming from a guy like Hegseth who was revealing classified information about strikes on Yemen in a signal message to his own personal lawyer, to his wife, to his brother.

So, you know, look, this is bad for the public. You know, we, hopefully, able to provide some kind of oversight over military budget. It is almost $1 trillion. It's -- it is bad for reporters. I mean, it makes it harder to do our jobs. And, you know, I think it's not going to be good for the administration because --

COATES: Why?

KRISTOF: Well, there's a reason that officials hang out with journalists. And it's not because they find us particularly charming, Laura.

(LAUGHTER)

It's not because (INAUDIBLE). I mean, you know, present company accepted.

(LAUGHTER)

But, you know, it is because they want to shape what we write. And they think that if by giving that access, they can put their fingerprints on the way we cover things. And, you know, sometimes, that's right. There are dangers for reporters as well about getting too close to people we -- we cover.

But, you know, I mean, look, this is how we cover a lot of militaries around the world. This is how we cover the Russian military, the Chinese military. We don't have that access, but we still cover them, and we will continue to cover the U.S. Military. And I think, you know, we'll continue to get good stories. This protects Pete Hegseth, perhaps, but it doesn't -- it's not good for the country, it's not good for the U.S. Military.

COATES: The only network to sign on to these rules is the MAGA line, One America News. Fox News, Newsmax refused. You talked about this potentially backfiring on the administration. Is there a world where Hegseth reverses course?

KRISTOF: I don't know. I mean, in a normal world, when you get that kind of feedback and your own former network is calling this a violation of principles, freedom at the press, you'd think they'd back off. But, as you just noted a moment ago, now, you know, President Trump seemed to think, oh, well, maybe this is a model for the White House.

[23:50:00]

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KRISTOF: So, you know, look, I can't predict what Pete Hegseth is going to do, whether he's going to make some compromise. But, certainly, it should be obvious that this isn't about protecting national secrets. What this is about is that Secretary Hegseth has very thin skin. He has had pretty tough coverage about his management within the Pentagon. I think there are a lot of folks within the Pentagon, military folks, who are not political, but they think that he's a sec def who is kind of like a platoon officer. He's -- you know --

COATES: Hmm.

KRISTOF: -- he's way down in the weeds, not really thinking about national strategy. And he has politicized the professionalism of the U.S. Military in a way they find uncomfortable. And I think he's -- you know, he's (INAUDIBLE). Reporters will write about that.

COATES: Nick Kristof, thank you. Up next, the monumental case about to go before the Supreme Court tomorrow morning. This case could change American politics for generations to come, and I'll tell you all about it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, here we are again. The Voting Rights Act back on the table before the Supreme Court. But the real question is whether it's on the chopping block.

I'll explain why this is so important. It's coming out of Louisiana, and there is quite a redistricting fight. First of all, a third of the population there is Black. But in 2020, the state's GOP-controlled legislature, they wanted to redraw the congressional map. That map had just one Black majority district among six House seats. I told you, it's one-third Black in that state. There was a lawsuit. And Louisiana then added a second majority Black district.

Now, the state and this administration are trying to persuade the Supreme Court to get rid of that second one. Why? They argue that the redistricting was based on race, which makes it unconstitutional. And they're pointing to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which says that you can't make voting rules that discriminate based on race.

Now, the question is whether it's one based on a discriminatory impact or the effect. And that's going to come down to a lot before a very Supreme Court that over the years has weakened the Voting Rights Act, including gutting Section 5 which, of course, was that formula to decide that the DOJ and the government would have a pre-authorization when you could make those changes.

I want to turn now to somebody who's fighting to try to make sure that that Voting Rights Act remains intact, Sophia Lin Lakin, the director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project and lead member of the litigation team. Sophia, this is a very important case. And we know this idea of one

person, one vote and representation of being able to elect a candidate of your choosing goes hand-in-hand with the districts and how they're drawn. What is at issue here before this court? It's not whether it goes away completely, but why?

SOPHIA LIN LAKIN, DIRECTOR, ACLU'S VOTING RIGHTS PROJECT: Well, this case is incredibly important. The stakes are incredibly high. What's at stake is a question that the Supreme Court has asked us in this new re-argument in this case. It is whether Louisiana's intentional creation of a second majority Black district required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act nevertheless violates the 14th or 15th Amendment of the Constitution.

COATES: Why was it required?

LAKIN: Because we demonstrated in a prior litigation that the way the map was drawn cracked Black voters and packed Black voters into one district, and that diluted their votes, and was illegal under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which demonstrated there was ongoing contemporary racial discrimination that interacted with this map to diminish the voting strength of Black voters so that they did not have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in that state.

COATES: This administration says that's essentially affirmative action, which is wrong. What's your response?

LAKIN: I would say you cannot remediate discrimination by ignoring it. And that's what the administration is asking here. We are talking about communities where we have demonstrated ongoing contemporary discrimination on the backs of centuries of exclusion. The only way to eliminate discrimination isn't by ignoring it, but it is by recognizing it and fixing the problem.

COATES: You didn't go before Justice Roberts, though, who I believe famously said the only way to, I'm paraphrasing him, stop basing things off of race is to stop basing things off of race, a reason he gave in support of minimizing the ability to do so. What's your reaction going for in front of him tomorrow?

LAKIN: I would say we all agree that we want to get to a place where elections, the political process, where race doesn't matter in that process.

COATES: We're not there yet.

LAKIN: We're not there yet, and we demonstrated that.

COATES: How about the partisan issue of this? I mean, they're going to say, well, hold on, this is about -- I mean, yeah, maybe this relates to race, but it's really about the actual, you know, party we're talking about. Is that going to undermine your case?

LAKIN: I would be very, very clear. This case is not about party. It's about representation and it is about whether we as a country are committed to ensuring that voters of color across this country have a seat at the table, that they are given an equal chance to participate in our democracy.

COATES: This case has come back before this court. They wanted to have more argument on this issue. How does that bode for you in terms of what they're expecting?

LAKIN: Well, you know, if anything, it's just demonstrating that they're really engaged in this issue. We have a lot of questions. We won't know. We'll maybe know a little bit more tomorrow when we hear their answers. But what we do know about this case, the facts, the law, decades of precedent are on our side, including from just two terms ago in the Allen versus Milligan case where the Supreme Court affirmed, upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and agreed that we still need Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

[00:00:00]

COATES: Are the facts so different now that the Voting Rights Act is possibly facing elimination or is that secure?

LAKIN: Well, two years ago, if anything, what we're seeing in Louisiana is very similar to what we saw in Alabama, which also had a map that was struck down on the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. Louisiana is no different.

COATES: We'll know a lot more tomorrow. The stakes are very high. I remember being in the Voting Rights Act, the DOJ. This argument was still there then. Thank you so much for joining, Sophia.

LAKIN: Of course.

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