Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Claims He's Not Fighting with Pope Despite Insults, Attacks; ICE Officer Charged; Federal Panel Gives Green Light for Trump's Arch in Washington. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired April 16, 2026 - 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: This is so fascinating. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thank you. It's always great to have you here on the show. Be sure to watch "Dr. Sanjay Gupta Reports Weed 8: Women & Weed" this Sunday, April 19th at 8 p.m., right here on CNN.

And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, President Trump drifts from his Iran message by once again attacking the pope, and the pontiff isn't backing down. Plus, the first charges against an ICE agent involved in the immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. I've got the county attorney joining me live. And Trump's massive arch in D.C. is getting the green light, but one veteran is suing to stop it. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, if you're trying to project confidence in your strategy, you usually want to keep the focus on the actual strategy, right? You want to talk about the pressure it is creating, the leverage it is building. You know, like whether a blockade against Iran is working or whether a new ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon will hold. What you don't want to do is drag the focus somewhere else, especially toward a fight that wasn't necessary in the first place, like repeatedly going after the pope. And today, President Trump did it again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Why are you fighting with the pope? And are you worried of getting here even though --

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I have to do what's right. The pope has to understand that. Very simple. I have nothing against the pope. His brother is MAGA all the way. I like his brother.

UNKNOWN: Why are you fighting with him then?

TRUMP: I'm not fighting with him. The pope made a statement. He says Iran can have a nuclear weapon. I say Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. And if the pope looked at the 42,000 people that were killed over the last two or three months, as a protester with no weapons, no nothing, I mean, you take a look at that. So, I can disagree with the pope. I have right to do disagree. I have a right to disagree with the pope.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, a couple of things. First, the pope has not said Iran can have nuclear weapons. You know, in fact, he has repeatedly said the world should ditch them, every country. Second, even though he seems to be fighting with himself, the president is fighting with the pope, because if this post isn't Trump leaning into a conflict, I don't know what is. He says the pope is weak on crime, terrible for foreign policy, and he should get his act together. Then, of course, there's that now deleted A.I. image Trump posted depicting himself as Jesus right after his written rant against Pope Leo.

And don't forget the others on Trump's team weighing in, including Vice President J.D. Vance. He's all but told the pope, stay in your lane. And today, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth lured the line between politics and religion by comparing the news media to opponents of Jesus Christ.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Our press are just like these Pharisees. Not all of you, not all of you, but the legacy Trump-hating press. Your politically motivated animus for President Trump nearly completely blinds you from the brilliance of our American warriors. The Pharisees scrutinized every good act in order to find a violation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What's that thing? Separation of church and -- oh, there it is, separation of church and state. I thought it was somewhere. As for the pope, he is calmly standing his ground without naming anyone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POPE LEO XIV, HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, BISHOP OF ROME, SOVEREIGN OF THE VATICAN CITY STATE: Jesus told us, blessed are the peacemakers. But woe to those who manipulate religion in the very name of God for their own military, economic or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But the president isn't just distracting from his Iran message with this feud. He's also making it harder to sell the message itself. The administration has repeatedly tried to explain higher gas prices this way: Short-term pain, long-term gain. But if the strategy comes with pain at the pump, you probably don't want to pretend the pain isn't all that bad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, they're not very high. If you look at what they were supposed to be in order to get rid of a nuclear weapon, with the danger that entails, so the gas prices have come down very much over the last three, four days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:05:00]

COATES: Oh, that's in my tank. I want to begin with editor-at-large at America Media, Father James Martin. Father Martin, thank you for being here. It is inexplicable to me as to why the president of United States is trying to engage in a confrontation with the pope. But let's talk about this because the president says that Pope Leo does not understand the Iran conflict. Do you think the president is fundamentally misunderstanding what Pope Leo is even saying?

FATHER JAMES MARTIN, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, AMERICA MEDIA: Yes, I do. I also think the president is fundamentally misunderstanding the Vatican. The Vatican has been dealing with political leaders and military leaders since at least the time of Charlemagne. So, they know exactly what they're doing. And the pope is just preaching the gospel. He's talking about Jesus's message of peace. So, the pope is not really engaging Donald Trump unless he is asked directly. The pope is just continuing to do his mission, which is to preach the gospel.

COATES: It's noteworthy also he's on a tour right now in countries that have also been confronted by war over time. So, there is an unusual focus that everyone thinks whatever the pope is saying must be about the United States and what's going on even in Iran. Pope Leo, though, is not backing down. Without naming names, he criticized those who weaponized religion for political gain. What do you believe was the underlying message and who do you think it's meant for?

MARTIN: It's meant, first of all, for the people of Cameroon, you know, who are suffering. But it's meant for everybody, really. When the pope speaks, he's speaking in the most general terms possible, you know, unless he's naming somebody or unless that he's naming a country. But again, he's talking about Jesus' message, blessed are the peacemakers, not blessed are the warmongers. And after the resurrection, Jesus' message to the disciples is, peace be with you, not vengeance is mine.

So, he's being consistent and preaching what all popes have preached in the same way, which is not only peace, but Jesus' message of love and mercy and compassion.

COATES: You've met with the pope. I wonder how do you think he is taking the criticism from the president of the United States, the vice president as well, particularly given his American roots.

MARTIN: Well, I mean, I can't speak for him, but I know him to be a very centered, calm man who -- one of the Augustinian priests who I met when I was in Rome said he's also no pushover. So, he's resolute in what he needs to do. And my sense is that it's not disturbing him in the least.

COATES: A prominent evangelical and Trump ally, Franklin Graham, he says he does not believe the president -- quote -- "would knowingly depict himself as Jesus Christ. When I looked at the illustration, I didn't jump to the same conclusion as some. There were no spiritual references -- no halo, there were no crosses, no angels. It was a flag, soldiers, a nurse, fighter planes, eagles, the Statue of Liberty, and I think this is a lot to do about nothing." Is that how you saw the A.I. image, father?

MARTIN: No, not at all. He -- the president said that he was supposed to be a doctor. I don't know too many doctors with glowing hands dressed like Jesus. It's pretty obvious that it was supposed to be Jesus. And it's a very strange image to post of yourself. So, I found it pretty -- not exactly blasphemous, but I guess the word is idolatrous. I mean, it's, you know, putting yourself as God. And the first commandment is, you shall have no gods before me.

COATES: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, he escalated his attacks on the media. He compared reporters, this was fascinating for some, covering the Iran war to biblical Pharisees who often criticize Jesus according to the Bible. What is your reaction to even that comparison or Hegseth invoking the Bible to condemn the media?

MARTIN: I think you have to be very careful when you're using the Pharisees. The image of Pharisees as narrow-minded and rigid is often a very antisemitic way of looking at the Jewish leaders of the time and Jewish religious figures. They have to be very careful when you call someone a Pharisee.

And also, basically saying that, you know, Jesus is on my side and everybody who disagrees with me is, you know, on the opposite side, you know, really makes no sense because it's basically saying that God is only on our side and God is against the other side. So, it's not really -- it's not really something that a religious person should be doing.

COATES: Father James Martin, thank you.

MARTIN: My pleasure.

COATES: I want to turn to retired U.S. Army lieutenant general, Russel Honore. General, I'm glad that you are here. I am very curious about your insight on this matter. Do you think that Secretary Hegseth's comparison of reporters to Pharisees was appropriate?

[23:10:00]

RUSSEL HONORE, RETIRED LIEUTENANT GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: No. It's obvious that the press is occupying a big space in the secretary's brain. The story he relates is set in church, based on some gospel scripture, then thinking about how he could come back and shoot the Saturday morning Fox one liners at the press to give the impression that the press is the problem.

The problem that secretary of defense have is to create -- to use the military to achieve the objectives to get the Iranians to give up the nuclear weapons and to use the military appropriately to close the strait. He's not talking grand strategy. He's quoting cheap scripture that comes from pop culture and movies as opposed to grand strategy. He's totally confused.

COATES: Let's talk about that strategy and what's happening with the Iran war because the president of the United States claims that Iran has agreed to no nuclear weapons, a huge sticking point, and also that they will surrender so-called nuclear dust. It's highly enriched uranium. Do you trust Iran will indeed do this or think the U.S. can safely retrieve that material?

HONORE: That would be a significant win if it comes out the way the president says it's coming out. That would have to be verified on both sides because sometimes, language and/or overzealous reporting could lead one to believe straight up what the president has said. But we need to hear that from the Iranians.

And I would be very proud to give the president a big hand salute if he can make that happen and we can stop the shooting and the killing and we can open the Strait of Hormuz again for the global economy before we start to fail.

COATES: It would indeed be a monumental success if that could be achieved. The president on the issue of Strait of Hormuz, he says that the U.S. blockade on the strait has been very effective. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have a very good relationship with Iran right now, as hard as it is to believe. And I think it's a combination of about four weeks of bombing and a very powerful blockade. The blockade is maybe more powerful than the bombing, if you want to know the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Strategically speaking, is the blockade more effective than the bombing to try to force Iran to the negotiating table?

HONORE: Yes. Well, right now, it's causing the strait to be closed, which is going to put a stress on the Iranian economy. It would appear that as opposed to bombing around up front, if we just went close to use an economic weapon to cut them off economically from the rest of the world by closing the strait, we could have saved a lot of people lives.

But be that as it may. The Navy is doing a superb job in blocking the strait. But that does not necessarily all of our tactical -- successes we've had in this war has not turned out to achieve the political outcomes, and that is eliminate the nuclear weapons and now to keep the Strait of Hormuz. But our Navy is doing a good job. They're holding the darn line in the strait.

But how does that relate to (INAUDIBLE) and ceasefire and end the war? And at the same time, we've got to make some significant progress with what's going on with the Israelis in Lebanon because the Iranians has insisted that that be a part of the end of the shooting and the ceasefire also, Laura. COATES: I echo your praise of our military. Truly. Speaking of the issue of what's going on in Lebanon, the president did announce a 10- day ceasefire in Lebanon. He's also optimistic, very much so, about a possible second round of talks. Tonight, Lebanon's army, though, accused Israel of violating that ceasefire.

Talk to me from the perspective of our military troops who must be in a kind of limbo, watching all the negotiations play out in the back and forth. How does their negotiation, in the diplomatic sense, does it impact the readiness of our troops?

HONORE: Our troops now are, about 50,000 of them, if the open source information is correct, are all now inside the striking range of the remaining missiles from Iran and whatever drones during this ceasefire Iran was able to repair or replace. So, we're in a more dangerous position because we've got more troops inside Iran's strike zone. That has to be a concern of all the commanders on the ground and the troops.

[23:15:01]

Once you get to an assembly area, you move into an attack position because the president still haven't taken off the table that if he doesn't get what he wants, he still could start bombing again and he still has the option to do some land invasion.

So, the troops are prepared. But the longer they stay in the ready position, they start the ability to execute missions, start to be degraded. Those troops have been on those ships now for weeks, locked in on those ships. And they're the greatest Navy in the world, but even that will have an impact on them if they have to stay in a ready position all the time, Laura.

COATES: General Honore, thank you so much.

HONORE: God bless America.

COATES: God bless America. Next, after widespread protests against ICE in Minnesota, tonight, a local prosecutor in the state has announced criminal charges against an ICE officer. Hennepin County attorney handling the first of its kind case will join me, next. And later, Trump's massive 250-foot arch gets the green light as Vietnam veterans step in to try and block it. One of them will join me tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: For the first time, charges have been brought against an ICE agent involved in the immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. But not for the cases you might think. The Hennepin County Attorney's Office just put out a nationwide arrest warrant for Agent Greg Morgan. Prosecutors say back in February, Morgan was driving on the shoulder of a highway while on duty when another car drove in front of him to slow him down. They say when the other car moved away, Morgan sped up and pulled alongside them, rolled down his window, and pointed his gun at them. He's now being charged with two counts of second-degree assault. Officials say Morgan was not conducting any immigration- related enforcement at the time of the incident. CNN has reached out to DHS for comment, and we have not been able to reach a lawyer for the agent.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty joins me now. Her office is prosecuting what's being called the first of its kind case. Attorney Moriarty, thank you so much for being here. I understand that your office is investigating 17 different cases involving the conduct of federal immigration agents, including the officers who fatally shot Alex Pretti and Renee Good. Why was this the first case where you were able to bring charges?

MARY MORIARTY, ATTORNEY, HENNEPIN COUNTY: So, this case pretty much started out as a 911 call by the victims to the state patrol to say that somebody had waved a gun at them. The state patrol investigated immediately. They went -- they found out that the car, the SUV, which was unmarked, was at the Whipple Building, which is where ICE has been staying. So, they went to the Whipple Building. They did interview the two ICE agents who were in the car.

And so, we have pretty much most of the evidence, almost all of the evidence that we would normally need to make decision about charging. That is different than the other cases that were not investigated by law enforcement and that we are investigating. We actually started out that TAP project, the Transparency and Accountability Project, with 17 cases. That increased and that did not include Renee Good, Alex, and Julio Sosa-Celis.

COATES: An important point that I think needs to be fleshed out more is the behavior that is being alleged. I mean, the administration argues that federal agents are protected by - quote -- "absolute immunity" while on duty. You argue that the actions here were outside the scope of those official duties. Tell me about the confidence you might have in being able to distinguish the behavior and the on-duty expectations.

MORIARTY: Well, first of all, there's no such thing as absolute immunity. That is just wrong. That's not what the law says. Now, if you charge a federal agent, they then have the burden of proving that they were on duty, essentially, and that they were acting -- doing only what was necessarily improper in the course of their duty.

And so, in this case, we have a situation where, according to the ICE agents, they were done with their shift, they were on their way back to the Whipple Building, and they were driving illegally on the shoulder when this car saw them coming up behind them, and pulled over slightly to signal to them, you know, get out of the -- you're driving illegally on the shoulder. So, at that point, the victims went back into their lane fully, and it was at this point where the SUV with the ICE agents pulled up right next to the victims. The driver of that SUV was the one who rolled down the window and pointed a gun at the heads of the two victims in the car. So, our belief is that even if the ICE agent should try to assert supremacy clause immunity in federal court, that we will be able to overcome that because he was certainly not acting within the scope of his employment or doing only what was necessarily improper.

COATES: Do you expect DHS to cooperate with the arrest warrant? What has their position been?

MORIARTY: We have no idea. We've not heard from them.

[23:24:58]

We are -- I wouldn't say hopeful, but we certainly would like Mr. Morgan to turn himself in or his lawyer to reach out to us. It's very difficult to have a warrant for your arrest if you're not compliant with it. You can get pulled over or given a parking ticket or something like that. And if you come to the attention of a law enforcement officer, they will run a check to see if you have any outstanding warrants. And if you do, they may very well arrest you. And then we would extradite the agent then. So, it would be a lot easier if his lawyer would reach out to us or he would turn himself in.

COATES: I want to go back to some of the other cases that you have been overseeing and looking into. I understand and appreciate that the investigations are unfolding with limitations in terms of what's being provided to you as well. No charges have been brought in the killings of both Alex Pretti and Renee Good. Just last month, Minnesota sued the federal government for access to evidence in these investigations. Can you tell me where those cases stand today?

MORIARTY: The big difference between the case we charged today and those two cases plus Julio Sosa-Celis is that the federal government has been blocking our access to evidence in those three cases. That was not the case here in this case because the state patrol actually investigated and got pretty much what we needed.

Where we are in those other three cases is that we had made demands of federal agencies, that's the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, making our case for why they should give us access to the evidence that we were looking for. We did not receive a response from the DOJ at all, which should be in violation of the Administrative Practices Act because they are supposed to apply certain criteria to tell us, you know, we're going to give you this information, we're going to not give you the information. If they don't give it to us, they're supposed to outline why.

COATES: Right.

MORIARTY: They did none of that. They simply didn't respond. So, we filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., asking the court to order them to give us the information that we requested.

COATES: Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, we will continue to follow it. Thank you so much.

MORIARTY: Thank you.

COATES: Next, it's affecting elections, it's affecting votes in Congress, and has Democrats divided.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RO KHANNA (D), CALIFORNIA: Mr. Schumer, you are out of touch with the base of this party and with your own caucus. Step aside.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: We'll dig into the growing shift in the Democratic Party over support of Israel. Plus, the president's very huge, huge, that's how you say it, arch that the White House says will honor American heroes. What has veterans suing? I'll speak with one of them, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, CNN projects that Democrat Analilia Mejia will defeat Republican Joe Hathaway to win the New Jersey congressional seat vacated by the now governor of New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill. Mejia is part of the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. She has been an outspoken critic of Israel who has called their actions in Gaza a -- quote -- "genocide."

Her victory comes as the Democratic Party is grappling with the issue of funding military aid for Israel. Just yesterday, 40 Senate Democrats voted against supplying bulldozers to the Israeli military, 36 Senate Democrats voted against supplying bombs to the IDF. Several of the Democrats explained their vote as opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's wars in the region. Resolutions, though, ultimately failed.

Joining me now is former New Jersey Congressman Tom Malinowski. He ran against Mejia in the Democratic primary. Tom, welcome. Good to have you here.

TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: Thank you.

COATES: You've since endorsed her politically.

MALINOWSKI: Yes.

COATES: But -- and you are far more politically a moderate than she is, especially on the matter of Israel. Yet, you and I talked about this in the past, AIPAC spent millions, $2 million, opposing you in the primary. Why?

MALINOWSKI: Well, because even though I'm pro-Israel, even though I take the mainstream view that Israel should exist and be defended as a Jewish and democratic state, I committed the sin of opposing the policies of Prime Minister Netanyahu and believing that we should treat Israel like any other ally. In other words, there is no blank check, there's no blind, unconditional support. We have to take these things on a case-by-case basis and keep American interests and values front and center. That was too much for them.

COATES: Well, you know, Senator Elissa Slotkin explained her vote yesterday in the Senate, highlighting the shift that we are seeing in the Democratic Party. And here's how she explained her vote against -- against weapons. This way. I can support the security of a country without supporting the specific policies of any one political party or leader. And if Israelis can take part in rigorous debate and protests of their own government's policies, Americans supportive of Israel can do the same.

Do you think that is the right message?

MALINOWSKI: I think that's right. It is the right message. It is what most Americans believe. It is what most Jewish Americans, including many Jewish Americans with deep personal connections to Israel, believe. And to argue against that, I think, is to argue something that's nonsensical.

[23:34:55]

The idea that whenever there's a controversy over what, for example, the Israeli government is doing right now in the West Bank, which many Israelis believe is encouraging settler terrorism, that whenever there's a controversy over something like that, the United States simply needs to defer to the position of the Israeli government. We wouldn't treat any other close ally in that way.

And I think, you know, organizations like AIPAC have made a very serious mistake. I think what they did in my race was a murder- suicide.

COATES: Well, Congressman Dan Goldman recently said this: I do think there is an undercurrent of antisemitism in the degree to which AIPAC seems to be vilified. I'm wondering whether to criticize members of the party for associating with influencers like Hasan Piker who spouse antisemitic views. AIPAC is but one funding mechanism, obviously, and they're quite influential.

But how do you think the party ought to approach what is a very nuanced issue for so many and the idea of the navigating an opposition to Israel and Netanyahu without feeding or being perceived as feeding into antisemitism?

MALINOWSKI: Sure. So, the right position, I think, is to be pro- Israel, anti-Netanyahu, pro-Palestinian, anti-Hamas, be principled. On the AIPAC, I actually agree with Dan that there is an element of antisemitism, right? So, on the far-left and the far-right, people who think that this is just like Jews controlling American policy from the shadows.

But I also think the mainstream position in the Jewish community right now is very hostile to AIPAC. And obviously, that's not coming from antisemitism. I think the important thing is that we shouldn't just single out AIPAC, that we should be against all the groups, including the A.I. and the crypto groups that are trying to interfere in democratic primaries with millions of dollars of dark money funded by pro-Trump billionaires. Every group that does this should be rejected by the Democratic Party, not including, but not only the one that's associated with Jewish Americans.

COATES: Tom Malinowski, thank you.

MALINOWSKI: Thank you.

COATES: You know, rarely do you get everyone in Washington to agree on something. But today, at least in the public comments, every public comment about President Trump's proposed arch said the same thing: Don't build it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): It sits in direct relationship with Washington, D.C. and its memorial landscapes, a monument so structurally structured, so closely associated with a single contemporary political figure, which stand apart from rather than contribute to that tradition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That was just one of the nearly 1,000 comments at today's Commission of Fine Arts meeting about the arch. For the panel, they gave it the green light. Now, of course, it has more hurdles to clear.

But at 250 feet, the height continues to be the tallest complaint. It dwarfs both the Statue of Liberty and the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which inspired Trump to build his version in Washington, D.C. And the arch would also alter the skyline of the district. It would be almost as tall as the Capitol and it would tower over the 10-foot-tall sarcophagus at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, just down the street from where the arch proposes to be.

That's one of the many reasons why my next guest is suing to try to stop this plan.

Jon Gundersen is a Vietnam veteran and a former diplomat. He's part of a group of veterans suing the administration over the arch. Jon, thank you for being here. I know that you helped launch the legal fight against the arch, but you want to honor veterans and you were initially open to the idea of this arch. What changed?

JON GUNDERSEN, VIETNAM VETERAN, FORMER DIPLOMAT: Well, thank you, Laura, for having me on. When we looked at this arch, we were curious, my fellow veterans, Mike Lemon and Sean Burns. We all served in Vietnam together. We were also in the Foreign Service together. We were behind the Iron Curtain. We've lived in some pretty bad regimes. And we served loyally. I've served with six Republicans, six Democrats. So, I don't want to approach this in a partisan way.

What we wanted is something that honored America, the 250th anniversary of our country. We wanted to honor veterans. But what we saw was this. As you mentioned, three times the size of the Lincoln Memorial, bigger than the Arc de Triomphe.

And if you go in Arlington National Cemetery, where all our former veterans are buried, and you look at that sweep, and you see the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial, it's sacred grounds. And these monuments in Arlington, in Vietnam, they honor the common soldier. They don't honor a man. They don't honor a general on horseback or a cause.

[23:40:00]

They honor the country. So, we didn't want some vainglorious attempt to do this. We don't approve of any certain arch or anything like that. We just want a process. We want the Congress to review it, the stakeholders to take a look at it, and the veterans to get a chance to look at it.

COATES: You know, the White House says in a statement, Jon, the arch will, and these are their words, that it will enhance the visitor experience at Arlington National Cemetery for veterans, the families the fallen, and all Americans alike. And they say this arch is a kind of visual reminder of American heroes' sacrifices. Is that the right and the proper intention that you believe?

GUNDERSEN: Yes. Well, we would like that to be the case. But if anyone -- if you've been there to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier or the Kennedy grave and you look at this vast sweep of Washington, and you're going to see this massive 250-foot structure obscuring the view of the whole city, and these iconic things that have all gone through congressional review have been bipartisan support, and here you have this large thing, it's not a monument to a country or to veterans, it's a monument to a man.

And having been in totalitarian society where we don't have the rule of law, we have a single person making decisions, we don't want this in this country. And this can be done. I'm not an architect. I don't know what's the best way to do it. But I know this is not the right way.

COATES: Jon, the project still needs more approval. The Commission of Fine Arts approved the arch. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, they've been pretty quiet. Why do you think more lawmakers are not pushing back on this plan?

GUNDERSEN: Well, we're beginning to get support from many veteran groups. I'm getting a lot of calls from my colleagues. So, something like this doesn't start with a groundswell. Think about the putting of the ballroom in the White House, how people reacted to that. We don't want shovels to go in there before it's too late.

We want people to think about this. This is a monument that should last for generations. It shouldn't be a monument that's just there for one person or one president or term. It should be a monument that kids come and see in many generations.

The Vietnam Memorial, for example. When I came back, we were not treated as liberators. It was tough time. Veterans are now appreciated. And the Vietnam Memorial appreciates the single courage of individual -- individuals, common soldiers. It's not a general, it's not a president, and that's why it's so iconic and people like visiting there. I go there often because I have comrades who are buried, who are on that wall. And it honors those people for their sacrifice, not for a cause, but that they serve the nation.

COATES: Jon Gundersen, thank you for your service.

GUNDERSEN: Thank you very much, Laura.

COATES: Up next, the war within the war. The A.I. slopaganda of being slung by Iran and what it means for the future of information warfare.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So, what if I told you the war with Iran was happening on two fronts? There's, of course, the war on the battlefield. And then there's the war happening online, one that involves propaganda or maybe a better word is slopaganda, tons of A.I. slop, like these videos posted by Iranian accounts. There's Toy Story Trump. There's Lego Trump eating a taco which, as you know, taco has become an acronym that stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. There's even a Minion Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I'm going to count to three. When I open my eyes, the strait must be open. One, two, three.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That video was posted by the Iranian embassy in Russia, clearly mocking Trump's threats to get them to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. These propaganda videos lean heavily into meme territory. Trump's blockade? Well, here's how they're spinning it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now is Emerson Brooking. He is a resident fellow at the Digital Forensic Research Lab of the Atlantic Council and is an expert in propaganda. Emerson, thank you so much for being here. I know you're an author and have about this extensively as well. Who exactly is the target audience here and what do you think these videos are trying to accomplish?

EMERSON BROOKING, RESIDENT FELLOW OF DIGITAL FORENSIC RESEARCH LAB AT ATLANTIC COUNCIL, PROPAGANDA EXPERT: Thanks, Laura. Great to be here. Target audience is Americans. And I think, specifically, it's us. Some of these videos or multi-minute clips that weave in, sometimes dozens of different specific American political headlines, they're clearly trying to target often reporters, political elites, researchers. And then from there, I think they make their way to wider American audiences.

COATES: You've seen propaganda from Russia, from North Korea. Those seem to show about military might. Why do you think Iran resorts to memes and cartoons?

BROOKING: In this case, it's in service of their strategy.

COATES: Which is?

BROOKING: What's surprising, even though the content often can be so sickly, there is a consistent message.

[23:50:02]

And the message here is trying to distinguish the American people from the Trump administration, to suggest often that it has been a mix of Trump in partnership with Israel, which has launched this war, which is not in the United States' best interests. They are trying to consciously communicate like a pretty nuanced political message even if it's with Lego and minions.

COATES: Well, the clips we played, they were all posted by either Iranian embassies or Iranian-linked accounts. But who is actually making these videos?

BROOKING: There is a huge constellation at play here. I should say, first, there are many, many different Iranian state media organizations. Often, they're in competition with each other. Then there is -- here, there's a much wider network, too, of Iranian digital activists, of students who essentially try to pitch into the patriotic defense of their country.

COATES: Talk to me more about the age of the people because -- I mean, there was a professor from Middle East, studied at Johns Hopkins, who told "The Guardian" that Iran has handed over a lot of media control to millennials, to the Gen Z, you know, content creators. What is the motivation that the future of the country and they're trying to instill these values there or reinforce?

BROOKING: I think it's the intent of these young people to still tell Iran's story, and they can't really do so freely. It's also because the regime has decided the same way that they essentially decentralized their military in the days after fighting began. They've also decentralized their communications apparatus. They've turned over the ex-accounts of embassies to these young people. They're starting to promote these videos that use different western symbols and culture. A lot of these things were unthinkable just a few months before from Iran.

COATES: You know, it's not just the memes, though, that we're seeing. There's a lot of deceptive A.I.-generated videos online that are meant to come off as real and not the sort of farcical things we're seeing. There was one fake A.I. video that went viral recently showing Tel Aviv being bombarded by missiles. I mean, that's particularly dangerous compared to even an attempt to make a mockery of the president of the United States.

BROOKING: It's so strange because we often thought with the rise of the internet, social media, everyone having access to information, we'd know more about what was going on in real time. But that's not the case at all. Especially in fast moving conflict events, we see the internet absolutely flooded with deep fakes, image manipulation, synthetic audio and video, and it's harder than ever to figure out what's going on.

COATES: The White House is also using messaging as well, by the way. I mean, they've been using memes, they've been using A.I. content. They haven't done the deception you're talking about with the bombing of Tel Aviv.

But, you know, they have posted just last month a video that used mixed footage that included "Call of Duty," different references, clips of the U.S. strikes on Iran. I mean, how is the administration here in this country leveraging these memoirs?

BROOKING: Here, in this case, honestly, it feels like a race to the bottom. I talked about an Iranian strategy. It was trying to convey a political message using these tools. The White House has adopted a strategy, too, but it has been this mixing of real images of death and destruction with video game memes. The message seems to be, basically, we're very good at bombing and we'll continue to do so but that, unfortunately, doesn't seem in service of a broader strategy.

COATES: Really quick, too. You mentioned the idea of what's going on in Iran. I mean, there is -- essentially, the service is down. The internet is not available really in Iran, obviously, during this war. What does that tell you, that these messages are so geared towards and tied to focus on Americans?

BROOKING: First, it tells us that Iran is a digitally savvy and connected culture normally, just like everyone else. I think that we get away from that because there's this image of the, you know, mullahs running everything.

No, Iran has a connection to the broader internet or had because the important point here is Iran is now under, I think, the longest continuous internet shut down in history. Average Iranians cannot access these vital services. That's because of a deliberate decision by the government that has made the panic and fear into Iran and elsewhere so much worse.

And the fact that they are, you know, using these lighthearted memes reaching Western audiences while their own people can't access the internet is ridiculous. COATES: A strategy that one would have to be explained. Emerson Brooking, thank you.

BROOKING: Thank you.

COATES: Great to have you here. Up next, a famous singer arrested for the gruesome murder of a 14-year-old girl. We got the breaking story for you, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking news on a year-long gruesome murder mystery in Los Angeles. The singer D4vd has been arrested on suspicion of killing a 14-year-old girl who was found dead in a Tesla registered to him. Her body was found decomposing in the trunk of the abandoned car last year. And court file revealed she had been dismembered and her remains were placed in two bags. Celeste Rivas Hernandez was her name, and she was reported missing from her home about 90 minutes outside of Los Angeles back in 2024.

[00:00:04]

And according to CNN investigation, she had known D4vd since she was 13 when she appeared in a live stream video that he shot. Now, it's unclear how she died. D4vd is currently being held in jail without bail. His attorneys released a statement to CNN saying, in part -- quote -- "Let us be clear -- the actual evidence in this case will show that David Burke did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez and he was not the cause of her death."

Thank you all for watching. "The story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.