Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Officers Sue to Stop DOJ's New $1.8 Billion Fund; Jeff Bezos Says Taxing Billionaires More Wouldn't Help Americans; GOP Moves Closer to Blocking $1B Request for Trump Ballroom; Spencer Pratt Speaks Out. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired May 20, 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]
JESSICA DEAN, CNN ANCHOR AND FIELD CORRESPONDENT: Amazing. All right, Noah, we also want to mention your new book, just out yesterday, "Blood & Progress."
NOAH ROTHMAN, AUTHOR: Thank you very much.
DEAN: Available now. All right.
ROTHMAN: Yes. I appreciate it.
DEAN: End it for us.
ROTHMAN: Yes. So, you probably heard that the America is right. It's the threat to, yes, to American civic compact, and you heard about it after a threat, an assault on ICE facility or an attack on a right- wing figure or even the mobs on cities daily. It's right for exploration, and that is something I look --
DEAN: Mixtapes.
(LAUGHTER)
ROTHMAN: Cities and birth cities, yes, because it is a little more --
DEAN: I like that thing. It's personal. All right, thanks to all of you for being here. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: All right, tonight, you knew this was coming, President Trump doubling down on his anti- weaponization fund. The January 6 officers are now suing to stop it. One of them is my guest tonight. Plus, Jeff Bezos making some waves as he tells and says that taxing him and his fellow billionaires won't make any difference in people's lives. Kevin O'Leary and Bill de Blasio might have something to say about that. And later, Spencer Pratt compares himself to, who else, Barack Obama in his run for L.A. mayor and gets the one endorsement he likely didn't want in L.A. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, so, you remember the swamp? The one President Trump said he would actually drain? Well, his administration is doing a lot of work, trying to explain what looks an awful lot like a swamp. The DOJ is defending a nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund. Even as critics call it a political payout for his mega allies. And not just Democrats have an issue with it. Several Republicans say they want to stop it.
And now, two officers who defended the Capitol on January 6 are suing to shut it down. One of them, Daniel Hodges, will join me in just a moment along with former January 6 prosecutor Brendan Ballou, who filed the lawsuit on his behalf. They call it the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century, a taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in Trump's name. And for Officer Hodges, that violence is more than words in a lawsuit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(SHOUTING)
COATES: He was pinned against a door at the Capitol. He was punched and kicked and crushed with the police shield and beaten with his own riot baton. Can you wrap your mind around this? I mean, the very idea that people who attacked officers like Daniel Hodges could even be eligible for a payout with his own taxes, mind you. That's why so many people are upset.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Tonight, the acting A.G., Todd Blanche, is insisting that any violence toward law enforcement would be considered. What does that mean, considered? Well, CNN's Paula Reid pressed him on whether people convicted of hurting police would get money. And you know what? He wouldn't rule it out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: You're the nation's top law enforcement official right now. Would you be OK with people who were convicted of hurting police getting taxpayer money?
TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Just to be clear, people that hurt police get money all the time. OK? There's a process where -- where if you are -- if you are -- if you believe you have your rights violated, you can -- you can apply for funds, you can sue, you can file a claim, you can go to court. In some of those cases, the state, the government, the federal government settles those cases. It's abhorrent to ever, ever touch a law enforcement officer, which is why any time anybody does that and it's a federal officer, we'll prosecute them.
But that's a completely different question with whether an individual is allowed to apply for a claim, whether they'll get a claim, who depends. I can't -- it's not -- it would not be appropriate for me to talk about absolutes like absolutely not under no circumstances. I mean, we can talk about hypotheticals until we're blue in the face, but -- but -- but that really wouldn't be fruitful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That's inconsistent, you realize, right? People who hurt officers get money all the time, but it's so abhorrent, that's why they're prosecuted all the time? Well, Trump isn't being quite as cagey or different with his words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I wasn't involved in the settlement. People were destroyed. They went to jail. Their families were ruined. They committed suicide. You know, all the Biden administration and the Obama administration, both of them. You're talking about peanuts compared to the value.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Peanuts. There's a lot to unpack there.
[23:04:56]
First, Trump's claim that he wasn't involved in the settlement is odd considering that he was the plaintiff in the lawsuit against his own government. Second, he's not talking about this like some detached legal process. He's talking like it is restitution for people who supported him.
And while nearly two billion bucks is a whole lot of money, we don't know if there are individual caps on who gets paid what or if they intend to try to re-up those funds when that water runs dry because look at the line to collect that is starting to form, look at who's already saying they want a bite at the apple.
You got January 6th defendants and rioters, My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell who amplified baseless voter fraud claims, pro-Trump channel One America News which held multiple 2020 related to the defamation suits, former Trump official, Michael Caputo, has already filed a claim, and
remember, he was investigated during the Russia investigation, and that list is ongoing. That's why some members of Trump's own party are saying absolutely not.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN CURTIS (R-UT): From all outward appearances, this doesn't pass the smell test.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): We got to unpack exactly what it is, what the source of the funding is, in order to stop it and/or reverse it.
(UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE) (voice-over): So, you want to stop it?
FITZPATRICK: Oh, hundred percent. (END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): It sends a signal, hey, go breach the Capitol, destroy the building, assault police officers, you may even get compensated for someday. That's absurd.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, Metropolitan Police Department Officer Daniel Hodges, who is here in his personal capacity, and his attorney, former DOJ prosecutor who handled January 6 cases, Brendan Ballou. Good to have both of you here.
I mean, first of all, let me ask you, Daniel. I mean, there's a convicted January 6th rioter, his name is Dominic Box, and he says this fund, his words, long overdue, and actually says, "I can't find a way to support myself right now. I lost my career. I look forward to financial compensation. I need it. This will be a welcome relief. It's not OK for hardworking, average Americans to be chewed up and destroyed as a collective boogeyman."
Given your experience, what do you say to this?
DANIEL HODGES, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER: Well, I'm not familiar with this individual person or his case, but, I mean, to put it bluntly, actions have consequences. You know, people are allowed to judge each other for what they do. And if people find out that this guy participated in the insurrection, that he committed crimes, perhaps crimes of violence, I don't know, then they have the right to, you know, treat him in a legal and ethical way that is consistent with their values.
My advice going forward to people is to not participate in insurrections. Don't attack cops. Participate in democracy in an ethical and civic manner and you won't have these problems.
COATES: Are you shocked to know that the attorney general, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, he's not ruling out giving relief under this fund to people who were a part of January 6th?
HODGES: No. I mean, Trump handpicks his people, especially in this administration, based on their loyalty. I believe, didn't he say, you know, I love you to Trump recently? That doesn't strike me as something an independent A.G. should say, but that's who he is. He has made it clear where his loyalties lie, and it's not to the United States, the country, the government or its people, it's to Trump.
COATES: What does that feel like, as a member of law enforcement, knowing what happened on that date and the aftermath? Is this a slap in the face again?
HODGES: Yes. Yes. I mean, it never really ends. It just keeps coming. It keeps coming. It's hypocritical, especially from these people who claim to back the blue all the time. It's inconsistent with the ethos of what they report to believe in, conservatives, about law and order, about just everything. It doesn't make any sense to me.
COATES: Brendan, I want to talk about this lawsuit because you're arguing this violates the actual fund, the 14th Amendment prohibition, on the use of taxpayer money to pay the debts that were taken to support an insurrection against the United States. Now, the DOJ is obviously going to come back, and they believe that they are righteous in what they have done. Many people disagree and will continue to do so.
But one of the arguments you're going to make is likely that Daniel Hodges, Harry Dunn lack standing, meaning you are not entitled to be here in front of the court asking for relief. What's your reaction?
BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Absolutely. So, think about the experience that these officers have had. They risked their lives. They almost died on January 6th. But the threat to them did not end that day. They continue to receive credible threats of violence. They've had to change their lives in many ways to make sure that they are not physically harmed or killed because of these people that are threatening violence.
The challenge that we have with this fund is if this money is disbursed to the rioters and their supporters who are threatening officers Dunn and Hodges, it says two things.
[23:10:03]
One, it sends a powerful message to the rioters themselves that their violent actions will be rewarded because it literally is getting rewarded. And two, it will provide financing for them to actually carry out their violent threats. So, this is a situation where the officers have standing because their very safety is imperiled.
COATES: Explain the distinction between this fund and being able to petition the government to address an actual wrongful act that they have done. People have looked at this and said, hold on. Well, there is a mechanism to ask for relief from the government if you feel you have really been wronged. It's administrative, it's a little bit of a longer process, it's not this. But why is that the sort of comparison point people are raising?
BALLOU: Two things. So, one, to have a settlement, you actually need a lawsuit, a lawsuit with an actual case or controversy. And the basic problem that you have here is Donald Trump is functionally on both sides of this lawsuit. He is suing the IRS, an IRS that he functionally controls. But even if there was an actual case or controversy, the settlement that's being proposed here blatantly violates the law because the president is functionally going to continue to control it.
So, you know, what they're really doing here is not creating an independent settlement fund, like we've seen before, and that are appropriate. What he is doing is functionally creating a new department or agency that he will control, that will have unlimited discretion to give to his allies. That is not something that he has statutory authorization to do. COATES: And likely no transparency into that in daylight. Let me ask you, because the associate attorney general, Stanley Woodward, is insisting, and this is a quote, "it is way too early to rush to judgment on whether the fund was a good or a bad." I mean, I don't know, I think I can form my opinion pretty quickly on this matter, but he is willing to give the benefit of doubt until the commissioners are appointed and confirmed, until there is clarity on what this will look like. Do you think that grace ought to be extended?
HODGES: No. I don't know why it is too early to form a judgment as to whether this fund is a good idea. We shouldn't wait for money to be doled out in such huge numbers, 1.7-something billion dollars. Why would we wait for that kind of money to be dispersed before we decide, is this a good idea or not? I think that the facts speak for themselves, that, as Brendan said, that Trump is on all sides of this, that it doesn't really have any -- he doesn't have any legal or rational authority to do this.
COATES: And yet the legislative branch doesn't seem to have a lot of power in trying to dissolve this and being able to do that. I mean, you've got Democrats demanding answers from DOJ. They call this self- dealing and IRS -- a self-dealing IRS statement that would obviously shield the president. And this was sort of the culmination of the results of all of it. Is that enough to cure it for you in terms of a litigation if Congress steps up and can legislate a solution?
BALLOU: You know, thus far, unfortunately, members of Congress and the president's party haven't shown a lot of courage on issues like these. And so, we are not optimistic that this is going to have a legislative solution. There's probably going to have to be a litigation solution here.
You know, what we see happening is, you know, exactly what we alleged in our complaint, which is already, rioters from the Capitol say that they are going to be seeking money from this fund. They are going to probably get the money from that fund based on everything that we've seen about how the president has behaved so far. And when they do that, they are going to be empowered to act violently.
COATES: Brendan Ballou, Daniel Hodges, thank you both so much. Thank you.
HODGES: Thanks for having us.
COATES: Republicans largely being left in the dark about the specifics for this fund. And although Brendan just said there hasn't been lot of courage from the party on issues like this, there are at least some signs that maybe not every Republican is going to be on board. Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, he's one of them. He's vowing to kill the fund. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FITZPATRICK: This is not a unilateral executive decision. If you're dealing with appropriated money, that got come through us. Constituents get rightly concerned, and then we respond to our constituents' concern. That's our job, to represent the people back home. I can tell you, the people that I represent, very independent- minded people. In Bucks and Montgomery counties in Pennsylvania, you know, they want me to look into this, and I'm going to, and we're going to -- we're going to fight hard against it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, former senior adviser for the Republicans on the House Oversight Committee, Kurt Bardella, and the founder of Endeavor PAC, Tiffany Smiley. Glad to have both of you here.
I mean, you know, Tiffany, this seems to be, in some respects, a no brainer, to disqualify those who were convicted of assaulting police officers. And even though they're pardoned by the president, why not just do that? Why not just say they're not going to be included here?
TIFFANY SMILEY, FOUNDER, ENDEAVOR PAC: Well, I think this goes back a little deeper. And I will say this is absolutely unusual.
[23:15:00]
Obviously, President Trump is not your normal politician by any means.
(LAUGHTER)
But also, I think, you know, it goes back deeper for President Trump as well under the Biden administration when there really was a weaponization of the DOJ. You can go back and see where many Americans were treated unfairly.
Members of Congress were spied on under Joe Biden's DOJ. Members in our military that didn't get the COVID shot were dishonorably discharged regardless of their decades of service. Parents on school boards were investigated. Catholics in Virginia were targeted.
So, our Department of Justice isn't perfect and there are misdeeds. And I think in a sense, like if there are misdeeds, then there needs to be restitution for these people. This is an opportunity to show that.
COATES: There is a mechanism to do that. You know, to be able to get compensation for the government if you are truly wronged. But should there be an exclusion for those who are not how you described, but those who were assaulting police officers, committing an insurrection on the Capitol? I mean, that -- just take them out. I'm not trying to write the full ceiling, but that's the minimum.
KURT BARDELLA, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER OR REPUBLICANS, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Right. I mean, this is the problem here. When you start new policy, when you fund new things, you're supposed to have the safeguards before you announce it, before you put it in place. We should already have these answers.
Republicans used to say when I was at the House Oversight Committee, the American people have a right to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent to ensure they are not being spent inappropriately, to ensure there's no waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement or corruption.
I remember when Republicans had power and Barack Obama was president, when a large amount of money was given to the federal government and we didn't know how it was going to be spent, they called it the most corrupt administration in history. That was the oversight committee that included Darrell Issa, that included Jim Jordan, that included Mick Mulvaney and Ray (ph) Lankford and Patrick McHenry.
And now, we have a large amount of money. We don't know how it's going to be spent. There are no guardrails. There's no oversight. We don't even know who's actually dispensing it and what criteria they're using. How is that not the most corrupt thing we've ever seen?
This is the standard and the language and vocabulary that Republicans set during Obama's presidency. I know because I was there working on it. They have to be consistent. You can't just dole out money with no safeguards. That is the pathway to corruption.
COATES: It sounds very similar to what Bill Cassidy is saying, fresh off his primary loss, obviously. He's saying if there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide. I mean, given what you've just described and also the idea this is coming from Senator Cassidy, I mean, why not go through Congress?
SMILEY: Because Trump is frustrated with Congress. It's slow, it's monotonous, and you often don't get anything accomplished. So, I think this is a way of standing up for the American people. And, you know --
(CROSSTALK)
COATES: -- Tiffany, because if the -- if Congress is intended to be --
SMILEY: Right.
COATES: -- a representative branch for the people and may have the power of the purse, is the frustration of the president enough about the slowness of the bureaucracy?
SMILEY: Yes. I mean, it's an opportunity, too, for -- I think it will show or it will expose injustices, and that's what this can show. And, obviously, a lot of people are still in the -- Congress is still in the dark on this. I think there will be more that comes out, that provides the guardrails or shows the American people where their money. I don't think it's going to be, like, and you get a prize and you get a prize and you get a prize. You know, there will be a commission. There will be a process that this goes through.
BARDELLA: I think that the argument that this isn't actually about Donald Trump, that there's some virtuous, better for all people thing, is undermined when you have provisions in the settlement that say Donald Trump and his family can't be audited or investigated for any potential tax fraud that they've committed along the way.
If it's really something about more than him, why are these provisions sneakily in there? And again, when you're suing yourself and the people who approve the settlement are people who work for you, that's not exactly a level playing field either.
COATES: I wonder who's on the commission. We don't yet know. They're building the plane while they're flying it. Stand by, everyone. Kurt and Tiffany are going be back later with me to talk some more politics. And also, feel free to ask questions and your comments. Send them to us at cnn.com/asklaura. You know what? Just text us, I mean, it's 2026, 818-972-7272. Just make sure you include your first name and your city or state. Again, the number, 818-972-7272. But first --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF BEZOS, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, AMAZON: You could double the taxes I pay, and it's not going to help that teacher in Queens, I promise you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Billionaire Jeff Bezos going in on New York City Mayor Mamdani in push to tax the rich. But Mamdani is not backing down or shutting up. And I've got former mayor, Bill de Blasio and Kevin O'Leary ready to debate it all, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: You know, when it comes to the economy, there's probably one phrase that many voters on the left and the right agree on, tax the rich. None of this is happening in a vacuum. The Federal Reserve reported earlier this year that the top one percent now own more than 31 percent of all the wealth in this country. That is the highest share since record keeping even began. It's why so many Americans believe the rich should pay more in taxes. But Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, he fired back today. He says forcing him to pay more won't solve anything.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEZOS: I pay billions of dollars in taxes. And it's a perfect -- again, if people want me to pay more billions, then let's have that debate. But don't pretend that that's going to solve the problem. You could -- you could double the taxes I pay, and it's not going to help that teacher in Queens, I promise you.
If we ran Amazon the way New York City runs their school system, your packages would take six weeks to arrive. We would have to charge you a hundred-dollar delivery fee. And then when the package did finally arrive, it has the wrong item in it anyway.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, not everyone agrees. The New York mayor, Zohran Mamdani, responded -- quote -- "I know a few teachers in Queens who would beg to differ."
[23:25:00]
Let's have this debate tonight with former New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio, and Shark Tank judge and chairman of O'Leary Ventures, Kevin O'Leary. Good to see both of you, gentlemen.
Bill, I'll start with you, obviously, even the former mayor. Not only is he saying that raising taxes are not going to help, he's also saying that New York City doesn't know how to manage money. Your response?
BILL DE BLASIO, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Jeff Bezos is entirely out of touch. I mean, this is breathtaking. First of all, the idea that someone like him who is clearly not paying his fair share -- vast majority of Americans see that and agree on that point, that his money wouldn't help to feed people, to get people -- to get kids an education, to provide more health care. Come on, that's insane on his face.
Second of all, what does he know about educating our children or doing things that aren't about making a buck? His whole career has been about how does he make a buck for himself. It doesn't matter what he does to his workers. And we know that a lot of Amazon workers feel they have been mistreated, they're not well paid. Come on, this is a really hypocritical argument from a guy who has benefited intensely from government contracts, by the way.
And things have been very, very easy for him as he has succeeded largely because the government has been on his side. Now, Donald Trump is entirely on his side because he made a movie for Melania. I mean, come on. I was amazed. It wasn't even a hint of humility or understanding just how difficult the lives of average American working people are and how he could do a lot to actually help but he's doing the opposite.
COATES: Well, Kevin, some fellow billionaires, they took issue with that comment from Bezos, I should tell you. Tom Steyer who is running for California governor called it -- quote -- "B.S." and said to invest in schools. So, which billionaire has it right?
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN OF O'LEARY VENTURES, SHARK TANK JUDGE: You don't have to debate it at all. The facts are the facts. Is New York City the most highly-taxed jurisdiction in America? Yes. Is it the most poorly-run city in America? Yes. Does it have every metric measured? It's just so inefficient.
And so, all Bezos was saying -- by the way, the most successful entrepreneur, one of them in American history, providing services to everybody in America that they enjoy a better life for, Amazon, and, of course, paying billions in taxes and creating millions of jobs, including in New York where those people are highest taxed. I don't think we should really debate facts because those are facts. All he's pointing out is you could steal all of his money, give it all to New York, and they would just piss it away. That was he was saying because it's so poorly-managed and it has been for so long. So, you can take everybody that has been successful in America. Steal all their money. Put it through the meat grinder of inefficiency, that was his point, and destroy what's great in America, the American dream. I love what he said. I thought it was right on. We should get more Bezos, many more of them, and put them in charge of running a place like New York, which is an absolute mess. It's a disaster. And it's measurable. A complete disaster --
DE BLASIO: Laura, I got to response.
COATES: Let me get -- of course, you have to respond. I mean, he has, frankly, crapped it all over your city. What do you say?
DE BLASIO: He sure is. And, you know, I have a soft spot for Kevin. But when he's dead wrong, we have to call him out. New York City -- give me a break, Kevin.
New York City has the finest police department in the country, the finest fire department in the country, the strongest public health apparatus in the country. We saw during COVID when we were at the epicenter how our public health community brought us back and made us one of the safest places in the entire nation. We are the ultimate city of immigrants. We are the ultimate economic engine of our nation. We're a place of incredible creativity and entrepreneurship. And, in fact, the city government helps make sure that all that happens.
So, you know, one million public school kids, including a lot of kids who are learning English and come from countries around the world, come from tough circumstances, we educate them. We have some of the finest public schools in America.
That is just -- Kevin, with deepest respect for the many things you know, you don't know what the heck you're talking about when it comes to New York City. And neither is Jeff Bezos. Jeff Bezos is so out of touch with everyday people's lives.
And the notion that serving people on this level doesn't cost money, do you think it doesn't cost real money to pay a police officer who puts life on the line or an EMT or a firefighter or a teacher? These folks are those health care heroes during COVID who literally every single day -- Kevin, with all due respect, you weren't on the front line, I wasn't on the front line, they are risking their life every single day. They are not overpaid.
So, don't tell me the government is inefficient when it's actually doing, I think, extraordinary work on an everyday basis and making this extraordinary city work.
COATES: Well, you know, I want to hear your response to that, Kevin, but I also want you guys to know that Bezos did seem to be OK with one thing, and that was New York's proposed tax on second homes valued at more than $5 million.
[23:30:02]
I mean, who doesn't have one of those? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEZOS: On the one hand, it's perfectly fine to have a policy debate about whether you want to have a pied-a-terre tax. The second piece, which is not so good, is to go stand in front of Ken Griffin's house and act like he is some kind of villain. But I think that the pied-a- terre tax is a fine thing for New York to do and, you know, have to figure out. But it is a policy debate. Policy debates don't have to be finger-pointing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: OK. So, Kevin, is the problem the form or the substance, the tax or the way Mamdani is trying to sell it by calling out billionaires like Ken Griffin?
O'LEARY: I don't think we should vilify success in America at all. I think --
COATES: Kevin, do you have --
O'LEARY: -- we should celebrate --
COATES: I can't hear him. Hold on a second.
(CROSSTALK)
O'LEARY: I just want to say, one thing I can agree with the mayor on, I can say that he is right about law enforcement and the troopers. I really endorse them here in New York City. I think they've done a phenomenal job under a tremendous pressure. But you can't tell me that making this the highest tax jurisdiction in America is a good thing because a lot of capitals leaving New York, that's bad.
Jeff Bezos doesn't live in New York. He lives in Florida. Why did he leave Seattle? Why did he leave a highly-taxed jurisdiction? Why do all of the entrepreneurs that created millions of jobs and paid billions of taxes leave California, leave New York, leave New Jersey? Why? Because it's inefficient. It's not run properly. And you can't just -- you run out of rich people's money eventually. If you can't run a state and a city efficiently and competitively, they just leave. And it's not a bad thing. It's a competition of states. That's OK. New York will get its thing together one day.
I don't think Mamdani is doing a phenomenally good job attracting capital in New York. People won't put any money into rent control buildings before they're built. That's bad policy. We're talking about policy.
I love New York. I love law enforcement. My children live here in New York City. I want the best for them, but I can't stand bad policy and mistakes made over and over again that ends up in the most uncompetitive place on earth, New York.
COATES: But it sounds like, Bill, that Kevin thinks that policy has to do with just how it impacts the rich. I mean, this all began with the teachers in Queens. My husband is from the Bronx. I don't think he's looking for a pied-a-terre somewhere downtown. I think people are trying to figure out whether the bus or the subway or paying their rent or anything else and the basic needs of life. So, why is policy just for the rich?
DE BLASIO: Let me tell you something. To say that someone who can afford $5 million or more second home should pay a little more in taxes, that is the most straightforward, sensible thing you could possibly imagine. The vast majority of New Yorkers, vast majority of Americans agree on that for good reason.
Again, we just saw this data from the Pew Research Center that shows overwhelming majority of Americans, almost two-thirds, believe the wealthy are not paying their fair share in taxes. When they see a very targeted tax only for people with a second home of great value, that's a matter of fairness.
As for Ken Griffin, look, this guy, he didn't make that money alone. Again, the wealthy overwhelmingly benefit from government policies that help them become wealthier. They have plenty of lawyers to help them not pay even the rate of tax they should pay. Let's get real. I'm not shedding a tear for him. And Mamdani was right to say if one individual can afford $238 million apartment, something is wrong in America, and we got to do something differently.
Again, I'm sorry to say, Kevin, vast majority of Americans agree with that statement. And, in fact, what the Pew Research Center told us was 41 percent of Americans, who happen to be Republicans, also think the wealthy are not paying their fair share taxes and would agree with that statement. So, something got to change. Mamdani is right to be fighting for that change.
COATES: Well, it sounds like Kevin wants the "I Love New York" sweatshirt from you. Nice to see both of you. Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
Next, Trump's beloved ballroom project now in jeopardy and potentially threatened by the same Republicans he got revenge on. The panel is back with me next on that. Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPENCER PRATT, LOS ANGELES MAYORAL CANDIDATE: He's the reality star. Now, I'm the one that's a candidate living in reality.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, now, the reality is he's out and got the backing of the president. But could it cost Spencer Pratt his chance in Los Angeles? Elex Michaelson live with me on his interview with Spencer Pratt tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This is a gift to the United States of America. And more than a gift, it's going to be one of the most beautiful buildings that has ever been built in the country or in Washington, D.C. This is not for me. This is my gift to the United States of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The president calls the planned White House ballroom a gift. But tonight, whether or not it's actually getting built, except for the hammers in the background, is actually up in the air. "The New York Times" reports Republican senators might scrap a provision from a bill that would cover $1 billion in security funds for the ballroom.
Trump has been trying to sell it by promising taxpayers won't be the ones paying for it. He still says that is the case, but claims he doubled the size of the ballroom at the request of the military, which requires additional funds for security.
[23:40:01]
But some Republicans, they are now skeptical.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): There are no architectural plans. There are no environmentalists. There's no engineering. There's no sense of -- when we ask, how did it happen to cost exactly a billion? It could cost a lot less. It could cost a lot more. I just don't get it.
FITZPATRICK: I don't think it's a good use of taxpayer money. I mean, the president -- the country is living paycheck to paycheck. We shouldn't be talking about dollars.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Let's bring back the panel, Kurt Bardella and Tiffany Smiley. OK, let's talk about this because poll after poll is showing the economy is top of mind for voters. You heard this. You're talking about this idea of a new Fox News poll as well now that found 76 percent disapprove of Trump's handling of inflation. Do Republicans want to be talking about the ballroom right now?
BARDELLA: I don't think he knows what a gift is --
(LAUGHTER)
-- because if I go hey, Abby, I just got you this very expensive gift. By the way, it costs a billion dollars. I need to check right now that that's not a gift from me to you. That's an expense you didn't ask for, approve of, know about ahead of time. And you're not going to say thank you, Kurt, that's really thoughtful of you. So, one, I don't think he knows what to get this to. This is a disaster for Republicans at a time when gas prices are through the roof, the cost of living is skyrocketing, when everyone is being asked to do more with less. This guy has talked about building a billion-dollar ballroom for himself. Good luck running on that November.
SMILEY: Yes. I mean, obviously, we would like to be talking about an economy that's flourishing and gas prices that are lower. But that's not the case. Things are going to get better. I think there's a lot of time between now and November. But I think Trump does have a case with this in the sense that we can go back to the White House Correspondents' Dinner and he has had three very credible assassination attempts.
BARDELLA: Yes.
SMILEY: And when you think of it in that term, like our president should have never been exposed like he was at the White House --
BARDELLA: But any of them been at a ballroom at the White House? Is the White House ground not secure?
SMILEY: And this isn't just for Donald Trump. This is for our future president. This is for our future cabinet members. This is for the protection of our United States government.
BARDELLA: Was this supposed to be paid for already? Didn't he originally start this by saying other corporate donations should be paying for it? Why does he need billion dollars, taxpayer dollars for it?
SMILEY: I mean, maybe he will get private funding to come and help --
BARDELLA: Maybe he will. That's the thing. It's all maybe. Nobody has --
SMILEY: I look at it --
BARDELLA: -- any definitive answers about this. How much it costs? Why does it cost that much? Nobody --
SMILEY: I'm sure that will be exposed and shown. But you have to think bigger picture. There are credible threats against our country, against our leaders now more than ever with technology and threats, drone threats. So, to have a space that is secure, that our military advises on, that is involved in securing and protecting a place where our president can be accessible to the American people. Not just President Trump. Even a Democrat, if he wins next term, or even a Democrat cabinet member. I think it's important for the bigger picture of this country.
COATES: Let's talk to viewers. They have a lot of questions tonight. I've got Sherry from Troy, Michigan who asked this question. I have never voted for Trump. Why do I have to pay for his ballroom or his slush fund? But the Republican voters pay. He's using my tax dollars to help and support only red states. Tiffany? SMILEY: Again, to my point, he's not just doing it for him, but he's creating a secure location for presidents to come in the future. So, it's a good thing for every American.
COATES: Kurt?
BARDELLA: He's creating something that no one has asked for, no one knew ahead of time. No one said yes, I want to vote for Donald Trump because he's going to take our money and build ballrooms with it. I think it's false advertising. This is interesting prospect, actually. You know, let's spend taxpayer dollars on only stuff that you approve. So, Republicans if you really like this idea, go sign up on a website and let your tax dollars go diverted to ballroom.
SMILEY: I'd rather have a safe president than a dead president. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican.
BARDELLA: No one wants a dead president, for the record, on either side of the aisle.
COATES: Emily D. asked this question. It appears there will be several lame duck Republican congressional members. Could we expect pushback on Trump's agenda in Congress? Kurt?
BARDELLA: Yes, we got the narrowest congressional majority for Republicans in the House and the Senate. Nothing spires. Yes, vote with me for what I want. I'm going to target you and make you lose your job. Now, I want you to vote with me. Not going to happen. It's going to be a very bumpy road between now and November when these guys are still in office.
COATES: We got Lucas from Arizona who asked this question. Why are Republicans so OK with outright corruption and the pillaging of taxpayers now? How does that jibe with being conservative? Tiffany?
SMILEY: Well, I don't know if I really understand his question, but I think taxpayers, we have to remember that Trump's administration is exposing massive, massive waste, fraud, and abuse that happened under the Biden administration, and that's a good thing for taxpayers. So, there are good things happening in the Trump administration in getting -- reclaiming our money back. We have been robbed. American taxpayers have been robbed, it's finally exposed, and I think that's a good thing.
BARDELLA: I think that they're using a lot of the office to enrich themselves. Something -- by the way, Republicans at the oversight judiciary --
SMILEY: Enriching themselves.
BARDELLA: The Trump family.
[23:45:00]
And let me just say, what we're seeing with the Trump family with stock trades, with awarding no big contracts to interests that they have financial ties to. This is something that Republicans once called an impeachable level offense. When they said that Joe Biden used his office to monetize, to enrich his family. President Biden has participated in this and it constitutes impeachable conduct.
COATES: Let's go to Chattanooga. I want to get as many of your questions as can. You're very interested out there. Daniel from Chattanooga, Tennessee asks, my question is how much longer must the country endure TLD (Trump Loyalty Delusion) before we figure out Trump only wants to prove a point? Kurt?
BARDELLA: You know, I've said a long time, the off ramp from Donald Trump ultimately would be if Republicans pay such a large price at the polls and they lose control in a widespread mandate, then you'll start seeing an off ramp from Trump within a Republican Party.
We've had split decisions really since every election. They lose the White House but keep Congress. They take back the majority but only narrowly. It's like the American people haven't sent a clear message that they want one party in control over the other. Really going back to before 2016.
COATES: We'll see. The midterms coming up. Kurt and Tiffay, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Up next, one reality T.V. star to another. Trump praises Spencer Pratt in his unconventional run for L.A. mayor. Elex Michaelson sat down with Pratt, and he's with me to talk about all of it next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRATT: Obama, yes, I'm most similar to Obama.
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: OK.
PRATT: And I know "The View" ladies said I don't have a law degree.
MICHAELSON: Yes.
PRATT: So, I'm going to work on that online. And then next -- before November, I probably can get one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: From reality T.V. villain to campaign disruptor, Spencer Pratt is ready for his next role, and he hopes he's going to be the mayor of L.A.
But now -- by now, you have seen the ads. Some of them A.I.-generated. Others playing up how he says he'll solve L.A.'s problems. You've heard Pratt's story about why he's running. Last year's catastrophic wildfires destroyed his house in the Palisades, along with thousands of other people. His videos calling out L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, they went viral. Now, he believes he can win, and he says he has support from Democrats.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRATT: Everyone that supports me is a Democrat, period. Every meeting I go to, all the groups of -- when they say, oh, they're going to put the Democratic machine against (INAUDIBLE), ah, they should find out that machine is actually meeting with me for brunch, for lunch, for dinner.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Elex Michelson sat down with Pratt for "The Story Is," and he is with me now. All right, Elex, you spent nearly an hour talking to Pratt, and one of his signature issues is fixing L.A.'s homeless crisis. What was his plan?
MICHAELSON: Well, a big part of his plan is to mandate treatment for people, he says, who are experiencing drug issues, and also to build a facility outside of Los Angeles that he would require people to go to, to essentially move the problem somewhere else. But one other spot that he said would potentially turn into a homeless shelter is the official residence of the mayor. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: Would you live at the mayor's home, the residence in Hancock Park?
PRATT: Absolutely not, because we have a housing bed issue. So, I'm going to use all the beds in that mansion for these single mothers that we keep hearing about, that are living on the street, or veterans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: Which is interesting because right now, that is somewhere where the mayor of Los Angeles is. It has been the official residence since 1977. We know that Pratt talks about the fact that he doesn't have a home right now because his home was burned down. So, I asked him, where would you live? And he suggested that he would live in the Palisades, on his burnt-out lot. But, as we know, right now, he's not currently living at that location.
COATES: There are so many people who are still suffering and will continue to do so since the wildfires have broken out and -- or in the future. And Pratt is also getting a lot of attention for his A.I.- generated ads like this one showing people throwing tomatoes at the L.A. mayor, Karen Bass, who was depicted in this as the joker. And she told you that ads like that, she feels, are dangerous. How did Pratt respond?
MICHAELSON: Well, let's be clear. First up, they're not Pratt's ads. They are fans of Pratt, have been making these ads for free. And Pratt has been sharing them out on his social media, which give them a lot more visibility because Pratt has got over a million followers online. But because he is sharing them out, a lot of people interpret that as an endorsement. Mayor Bass says, I don't like images like that. It potentially hurts my own safety. Here's what Pratt had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRATT: I'm not watching everything. And if there's something that -- you know, I guess I saw a clip. Mayor Bass said it's very dangerous, which is the funniest thing I've ever heard, coming from the lady who allowed 12 people to burn alive, and she's worrying about A.I.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: So, no apology there. He did, though, admit that maybe he should vet some of these videos a little more and watch them through. He said, basically, if he sees something that says 'Spencer Pratt for mayor' or 'Spencer Pratt is good,' he just reposts it.
COATES: I mean, one would think he would curate that differently. President Trump was asked about Pratt. He almost gave Pratt an endorsement. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE) (voice-over): Do you see yourself in him at all? A former reality T.V. star?
TRUMP: No. I'd like to see him do well. He's a -- I don't know. I don't know him. I assume he probably supports me. Does he support me?
(UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE) (voice-over): I think so.
TRUMP: I think so. Yes. I heard he does. I heard he's a big MAGA person. He's doing well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: How is that going to play in deep blue L.A.? Could that hurt him?
MICHAELSON: Yes, it could hurt him.
[23:55:00]
I mean, remember, this city is almost two-thirds Democrat. Donald Trump is not popular. A lot of the current policies in this city are not popular. But Donald Trump is really, really not popular, which is why Spencer Pratt is not running towards Donald Trump. He's trying to make the entire campaign about the fires, about homelessness, about local issues because if this becomes a left-right Democrat versus Republican race, he will lose and lose big. And so, that is why Pratt does not seek out the endorsement of Donald Trump.
And you were careful. You listen to that, that Donald Trump didn't say the word 'I endorse him,' which may have been what Pratt was hoping that he would say. He doesn't want him to say 'I endorse him.'
COATES: Well, look, I want to hear the rest of this interview in the next hour, and I cannot wait to hear it all. That does it for me. Elex is going to pick it up with "The Story Is" in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
