Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Virginia Supreme Court Voids New Map in Major Blow to Democrats; U.S. Awaits Iran's Response; Pentagon Releases New Files on UFO. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired May 08, 2026 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

DENVER RIGGLEMAN, FORMER VIRGINIA REPRESENTATIVE: And I think the other thing in the mystery is why is there a UFO caucus and idiots in Congress that believe this stuff. And I think once we actually get around that, I think we're going to be OK as a country.

(LAUGHTER)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right. Horace?

HORACE COOPER, CHAIRMAN, PROJECT 21: Well, my issue is a little bit more practical. I don't have a Keurig. I make coffee every morning, and I can't seem to figure out how many scoops of coffee to put in to get that perfect cup.

PHILLIP: I have the answer for you. Get a scale. The ratio is 1 to 17.

(LAUGHTER)

OK? Just remember that. A scale. That's what you need.

COOPER: You're solving my issue.

PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much for being here and thanks for watching "NewsNight." Catch our Saturday show, "Table for Five," tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Republicans strike back in Virginia, delivering a major redistricting blow to Democrats. This as southern states now prepare to run up the score. Plus, Trump waits for Iran. Americans wait for relief. But did the president just get some news that they may make him dig in a little bit longer? And the Pentagon drops a whole bunch of new UFO files, and my guest says it's just a drop in the ocean of what's coming. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, Republicans are winning the redistricting war, at least so far, because if the U.S. Supreme Court changed the rules of the fight last week, today, Virginia's Supreme Court tied Democrats' hands behind their back, it struck down the map that could have helped them net up to four additional House seats. Now, that would have offset some of the gains Republicans are trying to lock in all across the country. And this decision today, it's adding insult to injury for Democrats. Why? Because the redistricting plan in Virginia, that passed in a statewide referendum just last month. It was not just rammed through by state lawmakers in a special session and then quickly signed into law like what happened in Tennessee yesterday or Florida last week or Missouri last fall or Texas last summer. See the trend? No, this was approved by a majority of Virginia voters.

Well, AOC is putting it this way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D), NEW YORK: Virginia was an election of three million Americans. This court did not overturn a map. It overturned an election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, there's some important context here. There always is. So, the Supreme Court in Virginia is saying this was a timing issue. Lawmakers, you started the process too late. And that is what made the referendum null and void.

Now, you're probably wondering why they didn't look at the case before the vote. Well, the court's majority opinion actually addressed that point, and it says the state's own attorneys argued that the court could not lawfully decide the case until after the referendum, as in voting, was done.

But remember, Virginia is just one front in the fight. It's about the entire board. Yesterday, I said that Tennessee may not be the last domino to fall after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling. Well, more are starting to tip. Alabama Republicans just today told the Supreme Court, you need to let us redraw our map. Now, they're saying the ruling involving Louisiana's map, that gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. And guess what? South Carolina is not far behind. GOP lawmakers are already in the process of moving to consider redistricting, which would likely target the state's only Democratic congressman, James Clyburn.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority argued that their decision was about law. It was not about politics. And Chief Justice John Roberts made a similar point this week. "People think we're making policy decisions. I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don't think is an accurate understanding of what we do." Well, Justice Roberts, why would they ever have that opinion?

I want to start off with someone who argued voting rights cases or Section 2 as a DOJ trial attorney, the former assistant attorney general for civil rights and is now a general counsel for the NAACP, Kristen Clarke. I respect you so much and the work that you have done from the ground until now. And so, I'm glad that you're here to give us more context because this setback for Democrats, all because of timing, according to the Supreme Court in Virginia. Should that have been foreseeable?

[23:04:58]

KRISTEN CLARKE, GENERAL COUNSEL FOR NAACP, FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL AT CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION: Well, we're seeing a pattern happening right now. I mean, it has been a heck of a, you know, last eight, nine days in American democracy. We're seeing lawmakers across the south move at lightning speed to target Black voters and dismantle districts that provide Black voters an opportunity to elect candidates of choice.

And, you know, today's decision in Virginia is deeply troubling. It wipes out, seeks to cancel the votes of more than three million people across Virginia on what, frankly, feels like is a technicality. I'm pleased to see that Virginia is fighting and standing up for their voters, and we'll see ultimately what's happening, but this is a dark moment in American democracy, one in which every American should be deeply concerned.

COATES: There are other dominoes as I keep referencing. You've got Virginia, as you mentioned, being viewed as a technicality perhaps. It did not say that partisan redistricting itself was illegal. The Supreme Court has also not found that overtly. But this ruling still is different from Texas or the California rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Explain to people why these are not just piecemeal and whole in part the same thing.

CLARKE: Well, the Virginia situation is very different. Virginia's Constitution really creates a slow process for amending the Constitution and requires that there be two legislative sessions with an election in the beginning. And on what really, frankly, feels like very technical and procedural grounds, you know, by a 4-3 majority, this court has chosen to read the rules in a way that disenfranchises Virginian voters.

But, you know, again, I think it's important to zoom out and look at what's happening across the south in the country right now. And the picture there is one that is deeply racialized, one where we are swiftly seeing efforts to pull back access to the franchise for Black voters, one in which we stand to see fewer Black elected officials serving in Congress. And so, it's a 10-alarm fire right now.

COATES: So, the Supreme Court is likely to be asked to hear this decision from Virginia, for example. I am curious as to whether you think the Supreme Court, given that they just ruled, would even entertain something like this, particularly when you've got the dominoes in Tennessee and breaking up majority Black districts like Memphis, knowing that there's also going to be probably less Black Democrats or Black members of Congress, period, ultimately.

CLARKE: Well, it will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does here. But there is a pending case before the court right now, the Watson case, that is looking at the question of when do you stop counting absentee ballots cast by voters. And there, the question is kind of what constitutes the election.

The Virginia Supreme Court actually issued a ruling today that adopts a very expansive view of what constitutes an election. They included the early voting period that ran for about 45 days. Here, the Supreme Court and people who are pushing for a limited view on voting rights are asking the court to adopt a very narrow view. So, there is a tension here. And there is, I think, an opportunity for the court if they're going to adopt a narrow view of the election to overturn the Virginia Supreme Court ruling, which is in tension with the Watson case.

COATES: I know we have very limited time, but what will the NAACP and other entities try to do to fight back?

CLARKE: We'll keep -- we're going to continue to fight these battles in federal court, in state court. We're going to use every tool available to ensure that all Americans, particularly Black Americans who historically have been disenfranchised in our nation, we're going to use every tool available.

COATES: One last tool is Section 2 and the Voting Rights Act.

CLARKE: That's right.

COATES: Is that going to impact fatally?

CLARKE: The battle is a steep one. We just filed suit in Tennessee. The NAACP is committed to using creative litigation strategies, legal advocacy, showing up for these hearings, making sure that we are pushing back and putting lawmakers on notice that what they're doing is discriminatory, it is illegal, and it is immoral.

COATES: We'll see what happens next. Thank you so much.

CLARKE: Thank you for having me.

COATES: Tonight, Republicans, they're taking a victory lap. Former Republican governor of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, tells Democrats, I told you so.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLENN YOUNGKIN, FORMER VIRGINIA GOVERNOR: This was a big win today because what the Virginia Supreme Court did was render a blistering opinion that laid bare the deceptive process that Abigail Spanberger and the rest of the Democrat leadership in Virginia was trying to use in order to deceive Virginians.

[23:10:10]

They knowingly violated the Virginia Constitution. And what's worse is Hakeem Jeffries and Barack Obama and everybody else brought in as much as $70 million into the state in order to try to deceive Virginia voters. I'll also add that Hail Mary to the U.S. Supreme Court, I firmly believe, will be an abject failure because this is a state issue, it was clearly argued on state constitutional grounds, and the Supreme Court of the United States respects that in states.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: With me now, former senior adviser to the Trump-Vance campaign, Bryan Lanza, and former White House deputy press secretary under President Biden, Chris Meagher. Glad to have both of you here. I mean, Chris, this is a big blow for Democrats ahead of the midterms. Full stop. Are you confident they can still retake?

CHRIS MEAGHER, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Look, this was a bad day for democracy. It was a bad day for Democrats. But yes, I do think that we can still win back the House.

You have to remember how this all started. President Trump basically demanded this of the state of Texas to start gerrymandering. That's because his policies are not popular. That's because prices are going up. They have no solution for that.

And instead of introducing legislation that could actually make a difference in people's lives, they decide to play political games instead. And that's what you're seeing, the result of now in states around the country, in Florida. They tried it Indiana. We're seeing it in Tennessee. You know, we're talking about Virginia.

COATES: The list goes on.

MEAGHER: The list goes on.

COATES: But given that, I mean, I wonder how this messaging is going to take place for Republicans because while the issues you're talking about, what's unpopular, polling-wise is true. I mean, you now have this idea of the redrawing of districts, the unfairness aspect people are focusing on. How do Republicans market this to voters and seem as though they support democracy?

BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRUMP-VANCE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Well, they point to the northeast, which represents 30 to 40 percent of Republicans that don't have a single congressional seat as a result of Democratic gerrymandering. All we're doing is mimicking what the northeast has been doing for decades, excluding Republicans, you know, from being represented at the congressional level.

I mean, there are -- look at New Hampshire. You know, there are 50 -- nearly 50% Republicans who live in New Hampshire, and the Democratic Party, through the legislature, the governorship, gerrymandered that to make sure that no Republicans got represented. So, we tell people that we're playing by the rules that Democrats have been playing for decades, and they just don't like it, and that's tough on them.

COATES: Here's the problem. You're describing it almost as if we didn't start the fire, they did. We're just trying to correct --

LANZA: We're trying to level the playing field.

COATES: Well, that's what you're saying. Democrats are saying, we didn't start this fire, we're trying to level the playing field. And so, you have to wonder when it will end. MEAGHER: Reapportionment happens every 10 years on the nose after the census, right? What we're seeing now is a mid-decade changing of the rules by Donald Trump. He's making these pushes in states because his policies are so unpopular. He's desperate to hold on to power and try to win the midterms. I don't think it's going to work. His policies are that unpopular that there's going to be such a blue wave, that there's not anything that they can do politically, try hard as they may, to hold on to those seats.

COATES: So, Democrats spent months and nearly 70 -- excuse me. I don't mean to cut you off.

MEAGHER: OK.

COATES: Democrats spent months and nearly 70 million bucks to pass a referendum in Virginia. Do you view that as an exercise in futility or one that could be helpful for Democrats down the road, even in spite of what just took place?

MEAGHER: No. Look, you have to bring a gun to a gunfight, right? And we put our full force forward in Virginia. President Obama was out there. This was important to Abigail Spanberger. I know that officials in Virginia are talking about doing everything that they can going forward to make sure that the will of the people is followed through upon.

And I think that's another really important point that you touched upon at the top of the show. In states like California and Virginia, they brought it to the voters to decide what these seats should look like. They didn't do it in the middle of the night like they did in Texas or like they're doing in Tennessee or like they did in Florida, calling special sessions. If they're calling special sessions of the legislatures in these states, they should be doing it to lower prices for the American people, not jam through these maps that further like --

COATES: Disenfranchise.

MEAGHER: -- disenfranchise people.

COATES: What's your reaction?

LANZA: My reaction is the same. We are playing by the same set of rules that the Democrats have been doing for decades. We finally have a president that's saying, why are we being punched like this?

[23:15:00]

Why are we ignoring the fact that the northeast Republicans will be blocked out of any type of representation even though they represent 40 percent of the electorate there? What Donald Trump is saying, listen, you know what? We don't normally don't do this. We normally don't read district in the middle of a decade. But why are we going to step by and let disenfranchising take place?

And when I say disenfranchising, disenfranchising is clearly taking place in the northeast and nobody is talking about it. Everybody seems comfortable. But when Republicans talk about it and say, hey, we're going to play by those same set of rules, all of sudden, Democrats are like, wait a second, this is disenfranchised, we can't do this.

We are playing by the same set of rules that Democrats have been playing for decades. For decades, we've seen Republicans garner, you know, millions of votes in the northeast and not get any congressional seats. The only difference this time is we're doing it midterm, and that's because we have a president who says enough is enough. I think that's a good thing.

COATES: Well, under your logic and the Supreme Court's logic, they would tell you. But you have a Republican president. You have Republicans who are in office. Therefore, there's no longer a need to do anything that would be additive or helpful to you. Black voters in Memphis and other places like Louisiana, they said, you already have Black politicians, therefore, there's no need to have that umbrella because you weren't getting wet. So, that's the rule they set. I bet it's going to hurt you. Bryan, Chris, stand by.

Up next, the Trump administration expected a reply on their peace proposal with Iran on Thursday. Didn't happen. Expected a reply today. Didn't happen. So, what now? I'll ask a former top Middle East negotiator. And ahead --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COATES: I (INAUDIBLE) with the music, guys. The Pentagon releasing the first batch of secret UFO files. Is the truth out there?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The clock is ticking. But still no word of a response from Iran. That to a U.S. proposal to end the war. President Trump said earlier he expected this response to come "supposedly tonight." That's a quote. And while we wait, tensions are quickly starting to boil over in the Strait of Hormuz where the military fired on two Iranian- flagged tankers. They say those were trying to circumvent the U.S. blockade. But the president insists the ceasefire is still in effect.

Joining me now, former State Department Middle East negotiator, Aaron David Miller. He's also a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Aaron, good to see you. Let me ask you, why do you believe the Iranians want to drag this out?

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE: I mean, why the rush, Laura? They're winning. At least they perceive the fact that they are. The truth is if you stop the war tomorrow, it would be an undeniable strategic defeat for the United States.

COATES: Explain why.

MILLER: The intelligence community -- the intelligence community estimates 70 percent of the launchers are still intact, 75 percent of their ballistic missile inventory, about eleven tons of enriched uranium, including 900 pounds of highly-enriched uranium, 30 percent more, they get bomb-grade, and plus, they've weaponized geography. They have something now that we're never able at least to deploy. They could have. But now, they've done it, and they can do it any time they want. So -- and if you add to that the fact that they don't want to negotiate under pressure and the Americans just fired on to Iranian tankers today.

So, again, they will have a response, and we'll buy a ticket to the negotiations. But I got to tell you, Laura, it's going to be like having weeks of migraine headaches and root canals. It's going to be a real heavy lift.

COATES: Weaponized geography. I'm going to keep that in mind going forward and thinking about that strategic asset. Your colleague at the Carnegie Endowment have a new op-ed out. It argues that economic and military pressure just isn't enough. And he says the U.S. must offer Iran assurances, but also -- quote -- "respect the red lines that the regime has showed it will not budge on." So, what would that offer look like?

MILLER: I mean, Chris Chivvis wrote a very good piece. And, you know, it's wash, rinse, and repeat. We're in the third month of this war. It seems to me neither side has been able to deploy military power and economic warfare to get what they want.

I just -- frankly, I've been around negotiations also in my professional life with Israelis, now with the Iranians, but the truth is I don't see a real win here for the Trump administration because the Iranians are not going to concede on their core demands.

They're not going to give up the right to enrich. They're not going to give up their relationship with their proxies, right? Hezbollah and Hamas. They're not going to give up control of the strait. They're going to want some recognition of Iranian sovereignty.

Frankly, that, for the United States, the international community, that's intolerable. I just don't see any way of changing it. And the worst thing about it is this is not a negotiation between the United States and Switzerland. It's a negotiation between the United States -- whatever you think of the Trump administration. Iranian regime is brutal. Repressive murders in prisons and torture its citizens. And yet in this war of choice, which has now become a war of necessity, they have managed to put the United States in a box.

[23:24:58]

And frankly, I -- I mean, maybe you can come out of this with something akin to a win, some compromise on enrichment that precludes it for a period of time, but I think, by and large, it's hard to imagine that any of the objectives the United States sought at the beginning of this war are going to be fully realized.

COATES: You say they, and many people wonder who because they still haven't seen the new supreme leader and there's indication that he is somehow shaping a critical strategy. I wonder if that's really the case. Aaron David Miller, thank you so much.

MILLER: Laura, thanks for having me.

COATES: Next, a -- quote -- "golden age" for the economy. The White House out with a new message, leaning on data to make that very case. So, why aren't Americans feeling it? Plus, America's farmers still in crisis as the impact of the war drives prices up and threatens their very livelihood. One of them will join me live to explain just how hard it has been, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: American farmers are facing a one-two punch, the lasting economic strain from Trump administration's tariffs. And now, the disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, I mean, they've skyrocketed the cost of fertilizer, as you know, an essential nutrient for farmers to maximize food production. Now, you couple that with the rising cost of diesel at the height of spring planting season. The financial plan, it is now threatening the very livelihoods of farmers who are already barely getting by.

So tonight, I want to open up this space to hear directly from one of the many farmers who are shifting plans to try to survive the soaring prices on our behalf. John Bartman joins me now. He is a fifth- generation farmer from Illinois. John, thank you so much for being here. I have to tell you, it is so disturbing to hear about the impact on farmers across this country, and this will be your family's 180th growing season. Over the past year, you have faced --

Yes.

COATES: -- a fallout of tariffs. And now, the ongoing war with Iran. Tell me, how are you coping with these rising costs, the lack of revenue, all of it?

JOHN BARTMAN, SOYBEAN FARMER: Thank you, Laura, very much for having me. Thank you to CNN for also hosting Farm Aid. That really means a lot to us. You guys were very kind to put it on your network, that you care enough about rural America because we are having a real hard time right now. It's very sad. And according to the American Farm Bureau, every single commodity that we as farmers grow, all 11, everything from corn to cotton, the sorghum, the rice, all of it is unprofitable. And last year, thanks to Trump and his tariffs, every farmer lost at least $100 an acre. And we're in the same situation.

And now with what's going on with -- in the Persian Gulf right now, American corn farmers are being hit with a $5 billion surcharge for our nitrogen fertilizer that we need to grow our corn. Thanks to Donald Trump and his war in Iran that nobody really wants right now.

COATES: As I understand it, you planted more corn instead of soybeans this season to try to combat those tariffs. And now, as you mentioned, the fertilizer crisis in Strait of Hormuz, which you need to sustain your crops. I mean, are you confident your business could actually survive these headwinds and other options?

BARTMAN: Well, part of reason why I did it is, right now, we're looking at four million additional soybean acres being planted. And it's no secret that China is our number one export market for soybeans. They traditionally buy a quarter of our crop. And right now, they haven't even come up anywhere close to what they would normally buy. And, unfortunately, right now, with this administration, they don't know what the heck they're doing, and we're really suffering the collateral damage from it.

And so, I know that I would have a market. I'm also a regenerative farmer. So, I use less inputs than the average farmers, which is keeping me in business. But we certainly do use fertilizer.

COATES: You say that, and yet the AG secretary, Brooke Rollins, insists that the golden age of farming and for farmers is right around the corner. Listen to what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEC. BROOKE ROLLINS, U.S. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE: For all farmers and our ranchers, for farm security, for food security, making sure our farmers can prosper as they move into, hopefully, what will be a golden age under this president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Do you feel like you're heading toward that golden age?

BARTMAN: It's a golden age for farm bankruptcies is what it is. It's just sad that they don't understand what's happening right now. We're losing our market share to this very day. He's starting fights with Spain and with Denmark. And those countries are major consumers of pork, and soybeans is fed to pigs. And so, that's a market right now that we're not into.

And, in fact, those countries have entered into a free trade agreement with South America right now. It took them 25 years to negotiate that agreement.

[23:35:00]

They got it done in six months because they didn't want to deal with Donald Trump. And we are at that point right now that we, as farmers, we're having a real difficult time. It's hard enough we're dealing with Mother Nature. That's hard enough. But when we're dealing against your own government, that makes it even tougher.

COATES: John Bartman, thank you for sharing, and thank you for what you do. BARTMAN: Well, thanks so much for what you do, Laura. And for CNN, thanks for having me.

COATES: Well, we got Chris Meagher and Byan Lanza back with me at the table. I mean, you hear that. And we know farmers, the total backbone of our nation. And, you know, he's not alone. Plenty of farmers are struggling. They are pointing to the war. They are pointing to the tariffs. They are pointing at Trump for those reasons. Is the president letting them down?

LANZA: Listen, I think we saw this in Trump 1 when he did the tariffs and when he was confronting China, that they had to, you know, for lack of better word, give subsidies to the soybean farmers. And you've seen that again. So, there's clearly empathy and there's clearly a policy that the administration wants to do to try to help these farmers through these difficult transitions, especially if we do these tariffs.

But it's important to understand, we are having this tariff dispute with China to fix real problems that exist in our structural economy where China has taken advantage of the United States for decades now. And if it is short-term pain, and he said this in Trump 1 presidency, he goes, if it's short-term pain, we will help the farmers get through. But in the long run, to sort of stabilize our economic engine as this competes in China. That's a priority for the entire economy, not just one section.

And I think that's critical. I mean, China has been cheating, I think all presidents have said that, with trade. They act without any consequences on international stage when they do cheat, when they steal tech, when they do all these other things. And this just happens to be the time that we finally have an American president who's willing to confront it. And as he confronts it, you deal with an unintended consequence of farmers being targeted, which is why you see the president giving them bridge money to get through these difficult times.

COATES: Didn't find it helping. That happened in December. But also, farmers are not on the political clock that you described. I mean, many of these farmers, it's season to season. And the waiting game means that they might lose their farm. Hence the phrase "you got to mortgage the farm" on all these things.

The president captured 62 percent of the rural vote in 2024. And by the way, that was four points better than in 2020. I mean, if Democrats think that they can cut into that, what is the message that they should be sending that will resonate with farmers and those voters now?

MEAGHER: Yes. I mean, I think it's twofold. I think it's, one, Donald Trump came into office saying that he was going to lower inflation and lower prices. Instead, he has actively taken actions that raise prices and have made inflation worse with the war in Iran and the tariffs. Number two, it's showing up yourself. You know, I do some work in Iowa. Iowa farmers are pissed off. They are upset about what is happening right now. They were already in a tough spot with commodities and other prices and the like. It has only gotten worse under Donald Trump.

Democrats need to show up everywhere. They need to explain what they're going to do. They're going to explain that they're going to roll back the tariffs, that they're going to get us out of these forever wars, that they're going to not actively work on legislation that shuts down rural hospitals, making it more unaffordable to go get your health care. There are plenty of actions that we can take, but it starts with showing up in these rural places and telling them that we're going to be there for them. Focus on the issues that matter most to them.

COATES: What about Bryan's point about the, which I keep hearing from Republicans, including the president of United States, about sort of the short-term pain, long-term gain? Is that message something that Democrats can counter? Because, sometimes, people view the idea of showing up and saying what you're going to do as a performative band- aid. So, what would Democrats need to say substantively to some of these farmers, for example?

MEAGHER: Yes. I mean, it's a tough political argument to make, right?

COATES: Yes.

MEAGHER: We experienced it with the Biden administration with the infrastructure deal. You know, it's not like a flip of the switch and all of a sudden, the bridge down the street is fixed. You know, these things take years to develop and to actually unfold and fix. So, I understand the idea that you can't just snap your fingers and everything is all hunky-dory. But you do have to be able to actively show that you're helping them in the meantime. And instead, you just hurt a farmer who feels abandoned by Donald Trump.

And not just that, that they're actively taking steps that make it worse. This war of choice with Iran, either they weren't anticipating it, they weren't ready for it or they knew that the prices were going to get worse, and they didn't have anything ready to deal with it. And now, we're seeing the price of diesel through the roof. We're seeing gas at 4.50, like the regular American just can't afford those prices.

[23:40:00]

COATES: Let's talk about the White House's victory lap, though. They took one today on the jobs report showing 115,000 jobs that were added in April. A bit expectation, obviously. But here's how the president framed it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm happy about everything. Our country is doing well. We just have new stock market records. Everybody's 401K is hitting a record. The numbers are absolutely incredible. The job numbers, we have more people working today than we ever had working in this country. The job numbers today were incredible.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Consider his sentiment is different than what he is touting. To me, this reminds me a little bit of the feelinomics strategy of the Biden administration where they were using data to say, look, I know how you feel, but look how you should feel. There's a gap.

LANZA: There's clearly a gap, and that's what the administration needs to fix and need to fill.

COATES: How?

LANZA: They got to hit that message where they just reinforce. And you want to use the contrast of the Democratic Party as well. We know, historically, Democratic policies have hurt farmers for decades. The very first one is the inheritance tax, you know, the estate tax. You know, farmers depend on passing those farms on to their families. And what's the very first policy that Democrats usually try to do is they pass this estate tax, which makes it impossible for farmers to keep generational farms long. Their tax policies have been hurting farmers for decades.

So, you know, what the president is saying is we see this short-term pain with tariffs, and I'm empathetic and I'm offering solutions, but all we have to do is contrast to the Democratic policies for the last decades that have harmed farmers for decades now.

And it's a clear example. There's a reason why we win the farm vote time after time after time. Because farmers know that, overall, the policies that the Democrats want has always harmed farmers. And maybe there's a gap right now where there's -- where there's catching up, some catching up that needs to be done and explaining when it needs to take place, but our biggest issue is just contrast to our policies compared to Democratic policies from the last 30 years, and it's pretty clear who wants to harm farmers.

COATES: Sounds like one wouldn't buy your logic at all. Bryan, Chris, thank you both so much. Next, we're digging through the declassified UFO files. Yes, we are. And there is definitely some weird stuff in there. But does it prove anything? The Pentagon's former UFO hunter turned whistleblower joins me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So, the Pentagon just released hundreds of pages of declassified UFO files. There's still no evidence of little green guys. But like so many things these days, it seems there are now more questions, and we have answers. Let's take a look at what's new, shall we?

This video, captured in 2013, shows a mysterious object shaped like an eight-pointed star flying in the sky. No clue what it is. This one was taken just two years ago, reported by military observers. It appears to show a diamond-shaped vessel. The Pentagon says it's traveling about 500 miles an hour.

But the sightings, they didn't just happen on Earth. The Pentagon says this image was taken during the Apollo 17 moon landing in 1972 where astronauts reported seeing very bright particles of light. The files also included this bizarre exchange between astronauts and mission control during NASA's 1965 Gemini 7 mission.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): This is Houston. Say again 7.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): We have a bogie 10 o'clock high.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you have any more information, estimate distance or size?

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Looks like hundreds of little particles going by on the left, out about three to four miles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now is Luis Elizondo, the former director of a Pentagon program that studied UFOs. He's also the author of "Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs." The right person tonight. I have to tell you. Lou, every time you come on, I can't wait to hear more. You've been calling for transparency for a long time. Now, most of these new pictures, they were released with very little context. The president basically said, decide for yourself and have fun. Are you satisfied with what you've seen so far? Do you still have a lot of questions?

LUIS ELIZONDO, FORMER DIRECTOR OF ADVANCED AEROSPACE THREAT IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM, PENTAGON: Well, very thoughtful question. First of all, Laura, it's always great to see you. Thank you for having me on your show again. It's truly an honor. I think today was historic in some regards because a lot of presidents, a lot of administrations have been promising transparency and disclosure of some sort, and Donald Trump actually delivered on this promise to the American people.

Now, I know some people politically may either disagree or agree with him and perhaps, you know, they will argue it's a distraction from other issues like Iran. But for those who have been following this topic now for quite some time and some decades, to be honest with you, for some people, this is a win.

And I think the videos themselves, a lot of times, people will look and say, oh, that to me looks like a drone or that looks like something else. You said something, Laura, in the beginning of this. You showed a picture of the moon from the Apollo 17 mission. Now, if you look at the time when we were landing on the moon, it was really in late 60s and early 70s, we did not have satellites orbiting around the moon.

COATES: Right.

[23:49:58]

ELIZONDO: And so, here is a picture, clearly from the surface of the moon, of an object, and NASA actually followed up with this by saying, we cannot guarantee that this is not a real object, this actually could be a very real object. So, if you look at some of the other NASA photos, you'll see there's probably a half a dozen of these objects that have been -- had their picture taken by astronauts and by NASA cameras. So, there's a lot of things that were interesting that were released.

Now, let me emphasize here really quick, and I'll make it quick. The White House said that they were going to release these in tranches.

COATES: Yes.

ELIZONDO: The Department of War followed up or Department of Defense by saying there were literally tens of millions, now think about that, tens of millions of these documents that are in their possession, and a lot of these are hard copy. So, this is going to be a huge, huge undertaking in order to get this information out to the American people.

COATES: What do you anticipate will be withheld?

ELIZONDO: Well, look, there's a lot of things that should be withheld, right? In the world of national security, we protect things called sources and methods, and we apply classification markings to them to protect that information. Clearly, if there's an information gap or we have a capability that we don't want our adversaries to know, what you don't want to do is advertise that, right? So, you don't want to make a public statement saying we have this or we don't have that when you have countries like Russia and China that are trying to maintain a competitive strategic advantage. So, there are real reasons to keep things classified.

The problem is, Laura, that this information has been kept classified for decades for really no good -- we're not protecting sources and methods in this case. We're protecting a narrative.

COATES: Describe in detail what you mean because when you're talking about technology or sources of methods, my initial thought is actual human beings who are talking about issues and capabilities. But we're talking about classified UFO files. My mind goes towards alien-related technology. What would be the advantage of us knowing that information if we couldn't even duplicate it?

ELIZONDO: Sure, sure. Well, no one said there are no efforts in trying to duplicate it. I won't go any further than saying that. But, you know, we are trying to maintain a strategic advantage. And if there's a technology out there that we can exploit, certainly, it would be in the best interest of our country to do so. However --

COATES: What's the narrative you're talking about?

ELIZONDO: Yes. So, when you're protecting the narrative, though, we shouldn't be doing that. But there are reasons to protect things. So, for example, let's say you have a collection asset over a denied area, right? There's a country out there that we're spying on, and that country does not know that we have collection capabilities looking at them, right? So, by literally showing a simple video where you don't clear the metadata or perhaps you can recognize certain terrain features, you're giving away to your potential enemy the fact that we are there and we are monitoring these sites.

So, there's a lot of -- there is also the fidelity of the cameras. Sometimes, we want to protect our capabilities, meaning how really good are they, right? We have cameras that can maybe get a license plate from 25,000 miles away. Those are the types of things that we would want to protect.

COATES: Now, I am --

ELIZONDO: But the narrative, we should not.

COATES: Lou Elizondo, we'll talk more. Thank you so much. Up next, viral moment after viral moment. Why Spencer Pratt suddenly has everyone paying attention to his campaign for L.A. mayor.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast. Let's get things over to Elex Michaelson on the West Coast. Glad to see you fresh off that really, really compelling gubernatorial debate.

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Thank you.

COATES: But I want to go to the mayoral race happening in L.A. You got the reality star Spencer Pratt ala "The Hills" fame. He's running as a Republican. And this A.I. ad that he reposted has everyone talking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Please. I just want to rebuild my home. It has been over a year.

(LAUGHTER)

UNKNOWN: Mom, look.

UNKNOWN: This is a machine. If we want to burn this town to the ground -- who threw that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He, if course, lost his home as so many others did through the tragic wildfires recently. He also seemed to dominate the debate Wednesday, didn't he? I mean, is this just hype or is he gaining traction? ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: It will be interesting to see. You know, the challenge for Spencer Pratt, as you mentioned, is that he is a Republican and California is deeply Democratic. The city of Los Angeles itself is deeply, deeply Democratic, and that could present some challenges for him. He needs to basically create a coalition mostly of Democrats and independents who are so frustrated with the system that they metaphorically want to throw tomatoes in everybody's face and knock out the mayor of Los Angeles.

Spencer is very frustrated with the mayor. At one point, Nithya Raman, who's also running, said that Spencer wanted to run against Mayor Bass and was teaming up with her. Here's how Spencer responded to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPENCER PRATT, LOS ANGELES MAYORAL CANDIDATE: Mayor Bass and I are definitely not working together. I blame this person for burning my house and my parents' house in my town. All my neighbors down. I'm not working with Mayor Bass.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[00:00:00]

COATES: Wow.

MICHAELSON: I mean, he is very good at communicating on camera. And there is a lot of anger that people feel towards the system. And so, we have seen this in other places in the past. People that are good and communicating on T.V., that have figured out how to use social media, that have clear strong messages sometimes upset the system. So, if you had to bet, you would probably bet against Spencer Pratt, but it might not be smart to bet against him right now.

COATES: I wouldn't bet against the great show that's coming up for you. Elex, have a good one.

MICHAELSON: Thanks so much, Laura.