Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
The Supreme Court Hands GOP Big Boost In Midterm Map Fight; Trump: Ceasefire On "Massive Life Support;" Eighteen Passengers Being Monitored For Hantavirus; New Calls For Black Athletes To Boycott SEC Over Redistricting. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired May 11, 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]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's too expensive. So, I was like "Supermarket Sweep," come back. Bring it back. Let's see if people can afford to do something with the prices we have today.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: I want a game show called -- Hollywood is always depicting dads is like, you know, idiots who can't do anything right. I want to show called feats of domestic strength where average dads do things like --
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN OF O'LEARY VENTURES: Change diapers.
JENNINGS: -- who can carry the most garbage bags in from the trunk of a car.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
-- maybe catching --
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: They're good show like that.
JENNINGS: -- athletic equipment to the (INAUDIBLE). All sorts of things.
PHILLIP: All right. Everybody, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the Supreme Court does it again, handing Republicans another potential congressional map in their favor as Democrats scramble to stop the damage. Plus, the president declared the Iran ceasefire on life support and considers new military action for the strait and new economic action for Americans right here at home. And later, that Trump sticky note that was handed to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche just before the DOJ issued subpoenas to hunt down leaks. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Well, my opening statement tonight, the Supreme Court has started a redistricting wildfire that's quickly getting out of control. It's happening at a rate the Democrats can't yet contain. It's not just Tennessee or Louisiana or Virginia or Florida or Texas. Today, the Supreme Court paved the way for Alabama to get rid of a majority Black congressional district. It can mean that Republicans pick up yet another seat in November's midterms.
Now, I want to go back and explain quickly what has happened here because it's very important to have the context. And mind you, none of it would have been possible had not been for the Supreme Court's decision just two weeks ago that gutted yet another section of the Voting Rights Act. This time, not Section 5 but Section 2.
So, in 2023, Alabama drew seven congressional districts, only one of which was a majority Black one. Now, a lower court called them on it and said, you can't use that map. So, Alabama then drew a map that had two majority Black districts. Those two districts elected Democrats in 2024.
Now, fast forward with the Supreme Court gutting Section Two, and Alabama ran to the Supreme Court on Friday and asked, do we really need to have two majority Black districts or can we just have one? Well, the Supreme Court basically said, maybe, try it. It told the lower court to take another look at whether one really was good enough. Translation, that map with the two districts, not long for this world.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the order inappropriate and will cause only confusion as Alabamians begin to vote in the election scheduled for next week. That's right, Alabama has primaries next week, as in May 19th, seven days from tomorrow.
Absentee balloting, well, that voting has already begun. The governor, Kay Ivey, and the Republican-led legislature, well, they anticipated this. You know, they already got a law passed that would void the results of that primary, void them, and allow the governor to call for a new election on the new map. That's if Alabama is successful in the lower courts. If.
Now, for those of you who are keeping score, let me see, that would be also adding to Louisiana and Tennessee and Florida and Texas where Republicans seem to be getting their way. And, potentially, more are still yet to come.
Now, Democrats meanwhile, they're throwing a Hail Mary to try and salvage their defeat in Virginia. The appeal of the Supreme Court, let them use the map that was approved by voters in a referendum, mind you, one that would have given them four more seats.
Now, here's why I call it a Hail Mary pass outside of football season, but truth be told, the clock has likely already run out on Democrats on that one. Remember, it was the state Supreme Court that struck it down based on their own reading of the state Constitution. And even though Democrats are arguing the ruling depended on a misreading of federal law, the needle may not be moved here.
Supreme Court rarely second-guesses a state court's interpretation of their own Constitution. Remember when North Carolina Republicans tried it in 2023? That got tossed from the high court. And even though we are now less than six months from the midterm elections, you know that none of this is ending any time soon, right?
[23:05:02]
And tonight, the president of United States is urging Republicans to step on the gas. He's calling for more states, this time South Carolina, to redistrict, saying -- quote -- "South Carolina Republicans, be bold and courageous."
And yet, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffrey says, it's all good. He's calling his shot, vowing that Democrats, no matter what, will win in November. And his fellow Democrat, James Clyburn of South Carolina, well, he seems to agree. He's now in his 17th term, and he knows a thing or two or 20 about politics. And even with his seat, his own seat potentially at risk. This is how he put it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM CLYBURN (D), SOUTH CAROLINA: Be very careful what you pray for because what I do believe is that when they finish with the redistricting, there will be the possibilities of at least three Democrats getting elected here in South Carolina to the United States Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: My opening guests tonight are two experts on this issue. CNN political commentators Karen Finney, former senior advisor to Hillary Clinton, and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. Glad to have both of you here. I mean --
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Good to see you, Laura.
COATES: -- the Supreme Court can convince no one that they are not involved in politics. I mean, I don't care what they say and how often they say it, people look at this as thumbs on a scale, at least six of them, maybe nine, and we'll see. But Shermichael, the current Alabama map, it was under a court order. Supposed to stay in place until 2030. Not a surprising date because that's the census date, of course. Does this decision now, in your opinion, disenfranchise the voters?
SINGLETON: Well, what I'll say, I'm not surprised by this. And, actually, a couple of weeks ago, when we first started having these debates about where this could go, I actually posted on X that I'm almost certain, looking at the current bend, illogically speaking of the court, that they were almost guaranteed to lessen Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
COATES: And they did.
SINGLETON: And they did. That said, I recognize that most African Americans don't particularly vote the way that I do, and I'm OK with that. I still think representation matters. And whether it's Black people or white Democrats -- by the way, I know we focus so much on the racial component, but there are a lot of white Democrats in the south as well who would not have representation just as much as a Republican voter in the state of Massachusetts deserves to have representation there.
And so, I kept trying to figure out, Laura, how do we potentially correct this. I reached out to a buddy of mine I went to Morehouse with. He actually does line drawing for Democrats. He's a lifelong Democrat. And I told him, I said, what if we were to develop a partisan formula? Basically saying, let's look at the state of Louisiana where I'm from.
There are five congressional districts. Based on population of Democrats in the state of Louisiana, they would net two out of the five congressional seats. That has nothing to do with race. We're purely looking at voter turnout by party.
You look at a state like Massachusetts where there are zero Republican congressional districts. They probably earned one. You take that formula and you spread it across the country. You have independent redistricting committees who would oversee the process. We are here. There is no going back. So, my question becomes, how do we fix this?
COATES: Well, let me say one thing. The Supreme Court has said essentially you can have partisan-based gerrymandering.
SINGLETON: Exactly.
COATES: -- number one. Number two, you are entitled not to vote for the winner, but the opportunity to vote for a candidate of your choosing. Whether they win is different. But part of the gerrymandering discussions had been about the corrective action of what happens when there has been a race-based gerrymandering. How do you unpack that?
When you look at this, Karen, you know, there is the idea of Democrats and Republicans and whether or not they are effectively seen in the numbers of who is elected. But I wonder, from Democrats' perspective here, how do you address this without the power of Section 2 with the president saying, come on, be bold, be courageous among certain Republicans in South Carolina? Do Democrats have a fighting chance?
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR TO HILLARY CLINTON: So, I want to say two things. First, I want to just talk from a moral framework because I think it was so often we make this about Democrats and Republicans. This is about our country right now. This president sees the Constitution as an inconvenience. And it's not. It is the foundational document of this country. Either you believe in multiracial democracy or you don't. And that was the point of the Voting Rights Act. Remember, the Voting Rights Act in 1965, Black women did not have the legal right to vote until then. So, either you believe that we need legal frameworks to ensure that people actually get to exercise those rights or somehow -- and there are people who think, well, we don't need that anymore, to which I would say, well, if we don't, then why do we keep putting up barriers to make it harder for people to vote?
And, certainly, from the political framework, I mean, it's interesting.
[23:10:00]
I've been doing some examining of the data. And, unfortunately, the data shows that Democrats in the south actually do better for poor whites and for Black and brown people. They tend to support things like, I don't know, Medicaid expansion. So, we're talking about health care. We're talking about Jim Clyburn, who talks about the 10-20-30 formula, which is actually one way to look at, let's make sure that funds are going to communities that are consistently below the poverty level rather than sending those dollars to, you know, wealthy lobbyists.
COATES: But those messages don't always resonate among -- even if it's in your best interests to vote a particular party, it doesn't always translate for people, right?
FINNEY: Well, that's right. And look, I think that's part of why the conversation isn't just about party. It's got to be about our values and it's got to be about, OK, if you want dollars coming into your community, then the people that you -- A, you need to believe the right to vote, the freedom to vote. And who are you voting for?
So, on the political context, let me say this. I think this is a moment for -- again, this is a moral moment where people need to come together and say, we are -- the best thing you can do, register to vote and vote. And that is a strong message that I and others are going to carry this Saturday throughout the country to say to people, you got to vote. Being present is the most important way to protect our rights.
COATES: But there are those who may opt out and say, this is rigged. The whole system is rigged now.
SINGLETON: Sure.
COATES: But I have -- it goes to Alabama on this point because the governor, Kay Ivey, anticipated this, signed a law that cancels the elections so the state can redraw. I mean, it essentially voids a primary. That seems like very, very --
FINNEY: Like Louisiana.
COATES: -- very problematic if Republicans want to encourage voting in droves, right? If people are going to go out and their vote is somehow canceled until the maps are redrawn. What's the risk you see for Republicans? SINGLETON: Oh, well, look, it's not guaranteed that every single congressional district will win. You look at Texas, for example. Out of the five that were carved out in the southern eastern -- southern western part of the state, the premise was we'll win all five. Well, we look at some of the data now because of demographics in some of those new districts. Maybe we'll win three out of five. Maybe we'll win two out of five. We're not exactly sure.
But going back to my idea of trying to come up with an equation to address this, just as you said, Laura, the court said, hey, you can't use race. OK, no problem at all. The court did not say you cannot have partisan gerrymandered districts. So, again, going back to looking at that proportionality as it pertains to apportionment, how do you guarantee that people on the Republican side, on the Democratic side, have the ability to maximize their voice by voting for someone who represents, so number one. But number two, you also give both parties the opportunity to register as many people as possible.
COATES: Well, one major flaw of this, and this has been done, it's right's decision before, has been that people -- you are essentially confining people to only vote one way for the remainder of their lives living in a district.
FINNEY: Exactly.
COATES: If you're not somebody who is a lifelong or only will be, they have to now agree to that permanent status, which is one consideration. I want to go to the gas tax for a second, guys. I think it's an important point here because the economy -- President Trump is floating suspending the federal gas tax to help lower gas prices. And remember, back in 2022, gas prices hit five bucks, although -- maybe just yesterday when I tried to pump my gas. President Biden thought of the same idea and Republicans said, what? Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY KUDLOW, FOX BUSINESS HOST: The tax holiday is just silly. It has no chance of passing Congress. It will not reduce gasoline prices. It does nothing, of course, to help energy companies increase fracking or pipelining or refining. It does nothing.
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO) (voice-over): This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. I mean, what Joe Biden can do if he wants to have any effect on gas prices is to suspend and reverse his idiotic Green New Deal policies that are causing this crisis.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FINNEY: Yes.
COATES: Why do the same (INAUDIBLE)?
FINNEY: Because now, Republicans' necks are on the line. And now, there's (INAUDIBLE). I'm going to bring it back to voting actually because now, there's an acknowledgement that this president, his policies and this war in Iran which is driving up our gas prices, are not popular. And if people actually get to vote and they actually get to vote how they feel, Republicans are in big trouble, which is part of why Democrats are going to fight this tooth and nail.
But this is an acknowledgement that they are paying attention to the polls. They do recognize people are hurting and the economic pain is real. And just opening up the Strait of Hormuz tomorrow wouldn't even necessarily mean that our gas prices would go back down.
SINGLETON: Real quick, you're absolutely right in terms of people not being stuck into silos in terms of how they vote. But when you look at independents, they usually vote with Republicans or Democrats. And I kind of factor that in to my assessment.
To answer this question, though, I remember this issue with President Biden. I supported it because I thought it made sense. I think it makes sense now. The fracking, et cetera, that cut lows bringing up, that's a very separate policy issue. You have to bring some immediate relief to the American people. This is one potential way that Congress could do that.
[23:15:00]
COATES: Oh, the American public remembers. Karen and Shermichael, thank you so much.
Up next, the details of a behind closed door meeting between President Trump and his national security advisors. I'll tell you what they said about resuming combat operations in Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I would say the ceasefire is on massive life support where the doctor walks in and says, sir, your loved one has approximately a one percent chance of living.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I have the best plan ever. You know, in a war, you have to change, you have to be flexible. You have a lot of plans, but you have to do different plans in different days. But I have a great plan. But the plan is that they cannot have a nuclear weapon, and they didn't say that in their letter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Sources telling CNN tonight the president is seriously considering resuming combat operations in Iran. They say he's frustrated with how Iran is handling negotiations.
[23:20:00] I mean, that was on full display today as he publicly called Iran's counter peace proposal -- quote -- "a piece of garbage" and gave it this diagnosis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I would say the ceasefire is on massive life support.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to bring in lead global security analyst for "The Washington Post," Josh Rogin, and senior fellow at "The Washington Institute" and curator of "The Iranist" on Substack, Holly Dagres. Glad to have both of you guys here.
Let's talk about this, Josh, because the administration has said repeatedly that the war is over. But now, the ceasefire on life support sounds like the complete opposite. Am I wrong here?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, THE WASHINGTON POST: No, you're right. We're in a quagmire. This state of affairs is not only predictable, but predicted. And we're exactly where everyone, except for Trump, said they thought we'd be, which is a stalemate. And the Iranians have blockaded the strait, and we've blockaded their blockade.
And, essentially, we're playing a game of chicken. OK? And the Iranians are not going to blink because they don't care about the suffering of the Iranian people. And Trump is not going to blink because Trump doesn't care about the suffering of the American people. And so, when you have a game of chicken where neither side has any incentive to blink, of course, it's going to lead to bad outcomes and possibly more violence. Very tragically, actually.
And so, Trump has a plan, but he won't tell us what it is. Great. So, what does that lead to? It leads to what we have here, which is a failure of communication.
COATES: What we have here is a failure to communicate. Someone famously once said that. But, you know, I'm wondering who they're communicating with. This has been a longstanding question that you and I have actually spoken about, Holly, because the president insists that the moderate voices within the new regime are -- quote -- "dying to make a deal" and are much more respected than the people that he calls the lunatics. So, what do you know about the new leadership? Are they any more likely to make a deal now than they did back in 2015?
HOLLY DAGRES, SENIOR FELLOW, THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE: Well, I think there's a lot to unpack. So, a lot of the top military and political leadership were killed during the war.
COATES: Right.
DAGRES: And so, there have been these characters that have risen to ranks that are more hardline and more repressive than (INAUDIBLE). And given the situation with the war itself, they see that bending the knee or in the words of the president, encapsulation would be -- basically would be like giving up the Islamic Republic itself. And so, they -- they are not willing to give in to this rhetoric because they believe that the moment they give up the nuclear program, the ballistic missiles, then the Islamic Republic cease to exist.
COATES: I want to play what Netanyahu had to say because he says the war is not over until this happens and this has taken place.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: It's not over because there's still nuclear material, enriched uranium that has to be taken out of Iran. There are still enrichment sites that have to be dismantled.
MAJOR GARRETT, CBS NEWS CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: How do you envision the highly-enriched uranium will be removed from Iran?
NETANYAHU: You go in and you take it out.
GARRETT: With what? Special forces from Israel? Special forces from the United States?
NETANYAHU: Well, I'm not going to talk about military means. But what President Trump has said to me, I want to go in there, and I think it can be done physically. That's not the problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Specifics matter. I mean, you're to go in there and get it out. People are wondering what that really means. But how do you interpret that marker set by him?
ROGIN: Right. Well, it's clear the objective is not obtained. When you're doing a blockade, that is an act of war. That means we are at war. We've made zero progress on securing their nuclear material. By the way, Trump's own director of natural intelligence said they weren't even working towards a nuclear weapon when we started the war.
But put that aside for a second. The idea that we're going to send in U.S. or Israeli men and women into a hardened subterranean battlefield to drag out hundreds of canisters of highly volatile nuclear material under fire is crazy. That's an insane thing to suggest. And let's pray that doesn't happen because that's not going to end well. That's a mission that's not going to end well for those American or Israeli forces, even in the best-case scenario.
So, I think that is a decoy. Obviously, the only way to get the material out safely is to do it in agreement with the Iranians. That would require a negotiation that the Trump administration doesn't seem to be taking very seriously. And that's why we are where we are. Because Trump and Netanyahu's rhetoric does not match the policy and that also does not match the reality on the ground. That's why we have a completely chaotic and dysfunctional situation.
COATES: Well, this week, President Trump will be on the ground with the Chinese president this very week. And Holly, the administration imposed new sanctions on companies that are helping facilitate oil from Iran to China. Is that going to be the right level of pressure, to stop China from helping Iran?
[23:25:00]
DAGRES: Well, the China-Iran relationship is complicated. Interestingly, it was the Trump administration's withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 that started what became known as the Look to the East policy, which made Tehran look towards Russia and China. And so, we've seen them join member organizations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
And so, truth be told, the Iranians need China more than China needs the Iranians. And so, while Tehran's top oil buyer is Beijing, I think that Beijing could look for other options. And I think in this situation, I don't think they're going to want to ruffle the feathers of the Trump administration.
COATES: Really quickly, Josh. (INAUDIBLE) of business leaders are actually going. You've got Tim Cook. You've got Elon Musk. They're going to join the president on his trip to China. I mean, why is he bringing them?
ROGIN: He wants to make a deal. He wants these business leaders to want to do business in China. They're not concerned about China's help for Iran.
COATES: They're all sweet in the pot.
ROGIN: No. They want something. They want access to the Chinese market. What they'll have to give Xi Jinping remains to be seen. It could be concessions on trade, on technology or on Taiwan. Either way, American businesses want to make money in China. That's what they do. You can't blame them for wanting to make money.
But the president of the United States' job is to protect American national security and advance American national security interests, which are at odds with that objective. And right now, going to Beijing, it seems that Xi Jinping has the cards.
COATES: Josh, Holly, thank you both so much.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, FBI: Donald Trump has a bottomless desire to gain revenge against those who've criticized him, and I'm not going to stop criticizing him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: James Comey obviously defiant after that seashell indictment. But he's not the only Trump opponent facing investigations from the administration. I'll tell you about it next with former Congressman Adam Kinzinger. And still ahead, passengers aboard the hantavirus- infected cruise are now back in the United States, and RFK Jr. is weighing in.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COMEY: Donald Trump has a bottomless desire to gain revenge against those who've criticized him. And I'm not going to stop criticizing him because I think that's required if you care about America. And so, it will just keep going.
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: Do you think they're going to indict you again?
COMEY: Oh, I don't -- maybe. Yes. I mean, I think Donald Trump wakes up at three in the morning thinking about me. I do not. The vice -- reverse does not happen. But I'm sure that if this case falls apart, they'll come with something else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Former FBI Director James Comey breaks his silence after being indicted for the second time over a social media photo of seashells arranged spelling out 8647. The DOJ alleges that the image was a threat to kill the president. Comey denies that.
With me now, CNN senior political commentator and former Republican congressman, Adam Kinzinger. Congressman, welcome back. Look, Comey thinks the president's pursuit against him ain't over. But it won't deter him, he says, from speaking out. I mean, legally, he might have a strong case, at least for selective or vindictive prosecution. But do you agree that Trump will keep going after him no matter what?
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Yes. I mean, after this one, if they get crushed in court like they will, I'm not sure if they'll go a third time, but yes, I mean, this is -- he is -- Comey is right, he's obsessed with revenge.
And the point, I think, people need to realize is it's not the conviction. I mean, they'd love to get a conviction, but it's the inconvenience of the indictment, the picture of the, you know, what indicted James Comey, the fact that he's got to get lawyers, that's the thing. It's inconvenience.
And I think the thing that works and, thankfully, it's not working for Mr. Comey, but there are a lot of people that don't speak out now because they're afraid they're going to be targeted. I've talked to specifically one or two high-level generals who everybody knows their names that have told me personally, they're not going to speak out because they don't want to be targeted. That's the point. It's chilling. They're trying to chill any kind of opposition to them. COATES: I mean, it costs a lot of money to defend against a lawsuit brought by the government, a criminal case, and the worry and everything else as well. It's important to think about that.
I want to talk about a sticky note, yes, a sticky note, because sources tell CNN that the president personally delivered one with the word "treason" on a stack of news articles to the acting A.G., Todd Blanche. I guess intended to motivate the subpoena of journalists over alleged Iran war leaks. The source says the probe is aimed at government employees, not the reporters. What does that tell you about the administration's mindset right now?
KINZINGER: Well, they're paranoid. And it may not be aimed at the reporters, but they're subpoenaing reporters, they are going after them. It's a complete violation of the First Amendment. It is OK for an administration to try to figure out who is leaking within the administration but within rules.
To call that treasonous, though, this is a thing like -- you see this on social media. People throw the word "traitor" and "treasonous" around, you know, like it's a Tuesday night and just whatever. And, unfortunately, that word actually carries with it a lot of weight. Information like that is not treasonous.
[23:35:00]
And I think, you know, Trump, someday, when we look back, we're going to -- he's going to make Nixon look like, you know, a guy that was just upright citizens brigade versus what we're going to see end up coming out of this administration.
COATES: Well, one thing coming out is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wanting to investigate Senator Mark Kelly again. This time, for these comments. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AR): We've been briefed by the Pentagon on specific munitions. Actually, it has been pretty detailed on Tomahawks, ATACMS, SM-3s, THAAD rounds, Patriot rounds. So, those interceptor rounds to defend ourselves. The munitions are depleted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, let me be clear, Hegseth believes that Kelly disclosed classified information, which the senator disputes. Hear him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KELLY: Well, nothing I said was classified. We had this discussion in an open hearing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You were briefed on classified intel as a sitting member of Congress. Did Senator Kelly cross the line when talking about weapons stockpiles?
KINZINGER: No. This is stuff -- I mean, I've seen Hegseth even talk like this, saying some weapons are depleted. Like this is common knowledge. And in theory, even if you use one weapon of something, then it's even more depleted. Where it would be classified is if Senator Kelly said, we have X amount of munitions, we've spent this amount of munitions, meaning we only have 10 or 15 percent left in the inventory. When you get into those specifics, that's where the classification comes in, not the fact that we are in a struggling area with that.
The United States has a ton of munitions, but these high-level, very precise, and air defense munitions are the one that we have depleted quickly. And America has a right to know this. This isn't Senator Kelly out there saying things he shouldn't say. This is the American people's military. It's not Hegseth's military. It's not the president's military. It's the American people's military, and they have a right to know within reason that doesn't put troops in danger, the situation the military finds itself in.
COATES: Adam Kinzinger, thank you so much.
KINZINGER: Of course.
COATES: Up next, the administration defending its handling of the hantavirus outbreak as questions arise about one asymptomatic case in particular. Plus, the growing calls to boycott the SEC over redistricting.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, 18 people who were aboard the cruise ship at the center of the hantavirus outbreak are now back in the United States and are being closely monitored. Sixteen of them were taken to a quarantine center in Nebraska. Now, we're told all of them are asymptomatic, including one person who did test positive and was taken to a more restrictive biocontainment unit. Those passengers are being urged to quarantine for a period of 42 days. The top health officials continue to stress there is no reason for the public to worry.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. BRIAN CHRISTINE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Let me be clear, let me be crystal clear, the risk of hantavirus to the general public remains very, very low. The Andes variant of this virus does not spread easily and it requires prolonged close contact with someone who is already symptomatic. Even so, we have taken this situation very seriously from the very start.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: I'm joined now by infectious disease expert and epidemiologist, Dr. Celine Gounder, who is the editor-at-large at KFF Health News. Dr. Gounder, thank you so much for being here. Listen, no matter what anyone heard, they probably are focusing on one thing, that there was an individual that they say is testing positive without showing any symptoms. So, explain to our audience, is that unusual? And what could that possibly tell you about the potential spread?
CELINE GOUNDER, EDITOR-AT-LARGE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AT KFF HEALTH NEWS, INFECTIOUS DISEASE EXPERT, EPIDEMIOLOGIST: So, not every virus is the COVID virus. There are reasons why we have different families of viruses. You have the coronaviruses. COVID was a member of the coronavirus family. You have the hantavirus. Just like you have humans and chimpanzees, we're not all the same. And so, the behaviors, the biologies of these different families of viruses differ.
Some viruses, you can have what we call pre-symptomatic spread, which is when you have somebody who doesn't yet have symptoms but who's infectious, who can spread the virus. You have other viruses like Ebola virus, for example, that does not spread unless you have symptoms, unless you're very sick. And the hantavirus, based at least on what we know to date, is in that latter category where it does not spread unless somebody has symptoms.
COATES: Can they force that 42-day quarantine period or is that something that is sort of an honor system?
GOUNDER: We do occasionally have court orders for these situations. So, for example, if somebody has tuberculosis and they're not taking their medication and they are infectious to other people in the community, on occasion, we will court order that they remain in a facility for treatment until they are no longer infectious.
Now, think about COVID. COVID was actually a far more infectious disease than hantavirus.
[23:44:57]
What if we court ordered every person who is infectious to remain in the hospital until they were no longer infectious? That would never have gone over. And in general, the way we balance things with public health and these kinds of requirements is we're balancing civil liberties with public health. And so that means that we try to instead educate people, explain to people why it's important to follow certain preventive measures so that they don't infect other people.
And in the case of hantavirus, there's even more reason for people to cooperate, which is that if they get really sick with hantavirus, you get really sick really quickly and you want to be able to have access to high level medical care, ICU critical care, and also what are called ECMO machines, which are heart-lung bypass machines. So, there's very good reason for people to want to cooperate with us.
COATES: OK. You know, the president was asked earlier about whether cuts to HHS have impacted readiness for any major health outbreaks. We are going to listen to what the CMS director, Dr. Oz, responded to. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): What do you say to infectious diseases experts who say they're worried the country may not be prepared to deal with something like hantavirus because of all the HHS, you know, funding and staffing cuts?
TRUMP: Well, I think we take care of that. Doc, do you want to answer that?
DR. MEHMET OZ, ADMINISTRATOR, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAL SERVICES: It's just not true. Jay Bhattacharya is taking this task on. Secretary Kennedy is involved with it. You can speak to perhaps better than Frank at best in the room. But the country is prepared. The CDC is focused on it. The agency is well aware of the opportunities to actually treat this problem, not just try to prevent it in the future, but treat it if it happens now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do you agree with that assessment?
GOUNDER: With all due respect, I disagree. You have the president who has basically said hope is their strategy, that they have everything under control. You have Secretary Kennedy who says he's not worried, who has said in the past that he wants to give infectious diseases an eight-year break. That would be like saying you want to give Iran and China and North Korea an eight-year break. That's wishful thinking. And if that were the case, the world would be a much better place.
But that's not how the real world is. You have to address and prepare for every potential threat, and that includes infectious disease threats. You have the CDC, which has a massive void in leadership, not just the director, but many other senior roles across the agency. We have the FDA commissioner who we hear, it's reported by "The Wall Street Journal" and others, is about to be fired. And you have Dr. Oz, I guess, who is still left standing. We also have surgeon general.
So, you really have a massive vacuum at the top, and those who are at the top are not addressing the questions and concerns and worries and fears that many people understandably have coming out of the COVID pandemic.
COATES: Really important to get your perspective. Thank you, Dr. Gounder.
GOUNDER: My pleasure.
COATES: Hey, we've got more ahead because Dr. Gounder is answering your questions on the outbreak. Head to my social media to see that @thelauracoates. Next, the new rallying cry to boycott the SEC. If Black voices aren't presented in the voting booth, Black players shouldn't represent on the field.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) D.L. HUGHLEY, COMEDIAN, ACTOR: I don't understand why an athlete would go to a school where the state is ushering in a new iteration of Jim Crow.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I'll give you my thoughts on this and LZ Granderson will weigh in on the debate brewing right now after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:000]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, the political fight over redistricting, it's now landing on the football field. Some activists, some actors want Black student athletes to boycott some schools in the south. Famed actor Wendell Pierce is one of those voices. He points out 56 of all players in the SEC are Black and -- quote -- "Black athletes should transfer and decommit." Others say hitting states in the pocketbook is the only way they'll listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUGHLEY: I think the only thing these people understand is the loss of income. And I think the clearest way to do I -- I think that these four and five-star athletes, they need to understand they are contributing to a system that only wants to erode the situations they have. If you can't run in a state, you shouldn't run in a state.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to bring in L.A. Times op-ed columnist and host of "The LZ Granderson Show" podcast, LZ Granderson. LZ, I'm so glad you're here. I have been wrestling with this all day, ever since I heard about it, because there seems to be an unfairness targeting just the Black students who are in these schools and playing. But I want to know from your perspective, would a boycott of SEC schools by student athletes, would it actually move the needle on voting rights, you think?
LZ GRANDERSON, OP-ED COLUMNIST FOR LOS ANGELES TIMES, PODCAST HOST, VISITING SCHOLAR AT WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: Wow. Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me, Laura. And like you, I've been wrestling with this conversation. I haven't written anything about it yet because I hadn't figured out where I wanted to land. And the reason why is because it is so multifaceted.
I went back and I read what Kareem Abdul-Jabbar wrote because he boycotted the 1968 Olympics. I wanted to know if he regretted that decision. And he didn't.
[23:54:58]
In fact, some of the reasons why he boycotted in 1968 are some of the same reasons why we have these conversations today. And so, you know, I think where he landed and where many of the athletes landed in '68 was it was an individual decision and everyone decided how they wanted to represent themselves in that moment in response to what they were feeling and existing in.
And I think we need to allow that same sort of grace to happen today. You know, we don't know the conditions that every single athlete who happens to be Black going to SEC is going into. We don't know what their intentions may be. Don't forget, Reverend Jesse Jackson was a student athlete on campus when he rose up through political power. He cut his teeth on a campus in North Carolina. So, you know, a lot of things can happen when a student athlete decides to go on campus, whether it's a hostile campus or not. So, it's complicated for me.
COATES: It is. And, you know, when I look at it, I wonder a couple things. Number one, knowing the history like you do about the role of prominent figures to put their thumbs on the necessary scales for civil rights. The more prominent, the more voices can be heard. And yet, we consistently, as a society, screw up the world and ask our children to fix the problems. And I consider college-age students to be children.
And also, the idea that the onus is only on Black athletes to protest. I mean, I wonder why we're not calling on all student athletes to boycott in the same way the Freedom Riders or those on Olympic podiums and beyond had to know the strength in numbers. Just the identification of just Black students to deal with the issue seems inherently wrong to me.
GRANDERSON: I agree 1,000 percent with you. And I agree with you when we were talking about taking the knee with Colin Kaepernick and we kept running up to every single black NFL player and walked by the white ones as if they weren't living in America.
You know, the idea that only Black athletes are responsible for dealing with racism and using their platforms to address racism in a sports media is just, you know, naive and it actually embodies the very reasons why we keep having these race conversations to begin with because they characterize as a Black person's problem as opposed to an American problem.
But I would also go a little bit further, Laura. I would suggest that, you know, before you start asking yourself if Black athletes should boycott the SEC, did you boycott the NFL when Colin Kaepernick could not get a job? Did you boycott NBA when Craig Hodges was kicked out of the NBA for simply asking President Bush if you would help Black people? That's all he did. He wore a dashiki. He handed the president a letter saying, could you please help Black people? And the NBA back in the early 90s kicked him out and blackballed him. Did we stop watching the NBA?
So, you know, it's like you're asking students to do things that grown folks won't do. And like you, I don't think that's fair.
COATES: There is something to exactly what you said. And it's not that I think either of us -- I won't speak for you. I'll speak for myself. I speak for Laura Coates. There are many things that we should ask of people who are members of our country, members of our communities to whom much is given, much is owed. But it strikes me as particularly wrong to enrich for people in positions of financial power, people of security, to tell others who may not be in that same boat to sacrifice it all for what they believe to be the greater good and yet are not doing so themselves.
And one thing the LSU football coach, Lane Kiffin, had to say -- he gave a candid assessment of race when he was coaching at Ole Miss. And Kiffin told Vanity Fair, recruits would tell him -- quote -- "Hey, coach, we really like you, but my grandparents aren't letting me move to Oxford, Mississippi. That doesn't come up when you say Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Parents were sitting here this weekend saying the campus's diversity feels so great: It feels like there's no segregation." Now, whether that's true, I mean, Louisiana, still Louisiana, Mississippi, still Mississippi. I don't know how true that statement is.
But I wonder how much of an image problem some of these schools already have when it comes to race and whether that will motivate them to decide going forward where they choose to play as opposed to right now deciding where they can no longer remain.
GRANDERSON: You know, Laura, you know, I think part of the problem we have with this conversation is that for some reason, we think this was still a long time ago. And this is all pretty recent. You know, President Kennedy had to send in the National Guard to integrate the University of Alabama in '63. The football team wasn't integrated until four years after that. And that was a walk on. He wasn't recruited. He had to walk on after the National Guard integrated the University of Alabama.
And so, you know, that -- '63 is not that long ago. You know, my mom was like, you know, a young woman at that time, and she knows that time period very well.
[00:00:02]
Gen Xers, we all have parents who lived through this period of segregation. This was not that long ago. And so, when you see what's happening in the court system and see what happened with LSU in Alabama, don't think that we're reaching far back, we're just reaching to yesterday.
COATES: Not to mention, my children now will live in a world so far where there's also no Voting Rights Act the way that my own mother did until she was 13 years old. LZ Granderson, a longer discussion is necessary.
Coming up next is The Story Is with Michael -- I got your name. I know your name, baby -- Elex Michaelson is next.
