Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Met With Security Officials On Iran; Gabbard Resigns As Director Of National Intelligence; Trump Defends Anti-Weaponization Fund; Teacher Fired After Hanging Black Doll from Class TV. Aired 11p- 12a ET

Aired May 22, 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]

UNKNOWN: And although I was segregated, we were working on that understanding and misunderstanding of humanity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JESSICA DEAN, CNN ANCHOR AND FIELD CORRESPONDENT: We are so grateful for their service. "Why We Dream" premieres on Memorial Day at 8 p.m. on CNN. You can also watch on the CNN app. And I want to thank you, too, for watching "NewsNight." You can catch our "Table for Five" tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now. Have a great night.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Tonight, is the war with Iran about to escalate again? President Trump meets with his national security team and skips plans to leave Washington as he grows increasingly frustrated with negotiations. Plus, Tulsi Gabbard steps down as director of National Intelligence. But after her tumultuous tenure, will the next in line have any better shot? And the GOP revolt against Trump and his DOJ gets so bad that even Senator Ted Cruz says the White House has to make some changes. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Good evening. I'm Victor Blackwell, in for Laura. The war with Iran could be on the brink of reigniting. A source tells CNN that President Trump says -- has met with his national security team at the White House to consider a path forward. Now, the options include restarting military action. We're told the meeting ended with no decision on what will happen next.

But Trump has made it very clear that he is frustrated with how talks are going. Earlier this week, he said he was only an hour away from ordering strikes, but pulled back at the last minute after other countries in the region urged him to give negotiations more time.

But it's not clear if those negotiations are going anywhere or just delaying the next round of fighting. A spokesperson for Iran's foreign ministry puts it this way: A deal is not close. He says there are still very deep divisions.

The president is staying in the White House tonight. He's ditching plans to travel to his golf club in New Jersey for the weekend. He was supposed to go there after today's rally in New York where he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They are not going to ever have a nuclear weapon.

(APPLAUSE)

They are never going to have a nuclear weapon. And we will have that over with soon. It will be over with soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: The president keeps talking about Iran not having a nuclear weapon. But the Iranian foreign ministry says negotiations are focused on ending the conflict, not addressing Iran's nuclear program.

Whatever the talks are really focused on, the urgency is now upending the president's own schedule. He says he won't be at his son's own wedding celebration. He posted on social media, "While I very much wanted to be with my son, Don, Jr. and the newest member of the Trump family, his soon to be wife, Bettina, circumstances pertaining to government and my love for the United States of America, do not allow me to do so."

And as for those circumstances, as he calls it, he made pretty clear yesterday what they are.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I said, you know, this is not good timing for me. I have a thing called Iran and other things. But he's -- he got a very -- person who I've known for a long time. And, hopefully, they're going to have a great marriage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: I'm beginning tonight with CNN military analyst and retired Air Force colonel Cedric Leighton and CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen. Welcome to you both. Colonel, let me start with you. The president met with his national security advisors. No decision. Do you take anything away from a lack of a decision on how to move forward?

CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL: Well, I think one of the things, Victor, is that they're looking at possible ways forward on the diplomatic front or -- that's one possibility. The other possibility is that they need to get some more forces in place for some type of specific action. Now, we don't know what that might be, but, for example, it could be adding more aircraft to the mix, although they have a lot of aircraft already in the Middle East, both land-based as well as carrier-based aircraft.

So, any of those things are a possibility or they might be waiting for intelligence reports to indicate some things in terms of detailed targeting. So, those are some of the things that could be holding things up. But I think the lack of a decision means that there is still at least a chance that negotiations could move forward, but it does look like both sides are really far apart and maybe not even speaking the same language.

BLACKWELL: Peter, what do you make of this spokesperson for the Iranian foreign ministry saying that the negotiations are focused on ending the conflict and not addressing kind of the principal question here of the nuclear program?

[23:05:00]

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes, I mean, they've been very clear that the non-negotiable book for them is continue to keep the uranium enriched that they have, but also having some kind of tolling system on the Strait of Hormuz, which the United States has also said is non-negotiable. So, I mean, the distance between the two sides, as Colonel Leighton has indicated, is very large.

You know, one approach Trump could take is just carry out some kind of military action and declare victory because with every passing day, the price of gas probably goes up two cents a day, three cents a day. It's already at $4.55. The price of oil goes, you know, it's 103 a barrel right now. And so, you know, at the same time, there's sort of an inverse relationship between the cost of gas and the dropping polling numbers for the president.

So, from a political point of view, you know, we're getting close to the midterms. We've seen yesterday the House didn't vote on the War Powers Resolution Act, but they didn't vote because they're worried they don't, you know, on the Republican side, that they may not have the vote. But, you know, two weeks from now, you know, if that resolution came up again, I think you'd have some Republicans beginning (INAUDIBLE).

BLACKWELL: But Peter, you suggested one option is the president, you know, call for some specific military action, declare a victory. But if that declaration of victory does not include opening the straits, does not include getting the nuclear material, does not include some conclusion as it relates to the question of the nuclear program, is anybody else going to call it a victory?

BERGEN: Well, you know, I mean, the crucial thing really ultimately is -- I mean, look, in June of 2025, the president said the nuclear program was obliterated. It's obviously not in great shape. We can sort of debate what exactly obliterated means. Opening up the Strait of Hormuz is sort of that. I mean, the global economy desperately needs that.

And you could imagine some kind of deal that gives Iranians some kind -- I mean, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, said that, you know, any kind of tolling system on the strait would be unacceptable. That said, look, the new weapon that the Iranians now have is they've weaponized the strait. They didn't have that on February 28th when this war began. I don't think they're going to give that up. But you could imagine a situation where they loosen things up because, ultimately, you know, it's no one's interest for the strait to be completely blockaded. BLACKWELL: Colonel, the regime says that it's willing to push the war beyond the region if there is another military strike by the U.S. and Israel. They said they would bring ruin in places that Trump administration cannot imagine. They made good on making this a regional war in the first phase. What does that, from a military perspective, reach beyond the region look like, do you think?

LEIGHTON: Well, it could mean several things, Victor. One of them is terrorist attacks in other places. You know, using proxy forces of various types or groups that they co-opt in one way or the other. The other thing that would be important to consider are cyberattacks. A few months ago, we had -- the medical company, Stryker, was hit by an Iranian cyberattack. And recently, we had the gas stations being hit by supposedly an Iranian cyberattack.

So, the Iranians have capabilities. They've been in our industrial control systems before. They know how to get there. And it is, you know, these are areas that are often unsecured, such as the gas stations. And Stryker, as far as I know, is still dealing with the after effects of the cyberattack against them.

So, these are issues that could absolutely affect the infrastructure of the United States as well as allies, and it could affect the daily lives of Americans if we're not too careful.

BLACKWELL: The asymmetrical warfare we've been discussing since this started back in February. Peter, to you, President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu have had recent phone calls. They are not seeing eye to eye here. Obviously, the prime minister had some influence at the start of this. As the president is now considering reigniting some military action, how much influence at this phase, starting week 13 of this war, does Netanyahu have?

BERGEN: Well, I mean, President Trump must feel that he was sold a bill of goods by the prime minister because they met in early February and the prime minister, according to reporting, said, you know, basically, if you -- you'll be able to incite a popular revolution and we'll have regime change which, if you remember, Victor, the night that President Trump announced this, he said, you know, the Iranian people will rise up. So, I mean, there must be a certain amount of bias remorse because none of those things happened.

So, how much influence does he have? You know, they have a great deal of military cooperation that the colonel can address more clearly than I can, obviously. But it seems to be declining. Reports were this was not a pleasant conversation. And at the end of the day, the strategic goals of the two countries are now beginning to kind of -- I mean, what Netanyahu -- he has said, my full decade dream is to overthrow the regime.

[23:10:04]

At this point, the United States probably just wants to resolve the conflict in a way that is somewhat, you know, plausible economically and politically. And, you know, regime change is not on the cards. BLACKWELL: Yes, economically. That, of course, brings us back to the Strait of Hormuz. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the U.S. and allies need a plan B if Iran does not reopen the strait. Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker has an idea. This is what he said: "Our commander-in-chief needs to allow America's skilled armed forces to finish the destruction of Iran's conventional military capabilities and reopen the strait." Is it that simple?

LEIGHTON: No, it's not. It's a very complex geography. And what's interesting about the Strait of Hormuz, Victor, is that not only is Iran considering the total effort, but Iran has reached out to Oman and asked Oman to possibly share in a total revenue scheme for the Strait of Hormuz. So, if that happens, now, all of a sudden, you have two countries, one of them an ostensible U.S. ally, Oman, actually collecting tolls on what had previously been an international waterway.

So, when you get to Senator Wicker's point there about, you know, making -- finishing the job in essence, that sounds really good politically and, you know, in some cases, some people would say even morally perhaps. But the problem with that is you really have to have forces on the ground to do that.

Now, what form those forces take and how long they stay there, those are all big questions that need to be answered before you actually go and engage. And when you do answer those questions, you know that the answers are almost always going to be wrong because things change as you make a contact with an adversary and the Iranians would probably fight pretty extensively to keep the Strait of Hormuz in their hands.

BLACKWELL: Tulsi Gabbard announced today that she's going to be stepping down as the director of National Intelligence at the end of June. I wonder, how relevant is her piece of the puzzle considering she wasn't central to the planning and was kind of off message with the administration in their war with Iran?

BERGEN: Yes, in Washington, Victor, the definition of a gaffe is telling the truth in public. When she filed her testimony -- her written testimony on March 17th, it said that the Iran nuclear program basically is destroyed. They hadn't started it again.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

BERGEN: When she testified publicly the next day, she forgot to mention that in her testimony.

BLACKWELL: Forgot.

(LAUGHTER)

BLACKWELL: Forgot.

BERGEN: Well, she actually said that she ran out of time or something.

BLACKWELL: Yes. BERGEN: Anyway, the point is that, you know, but like it's not just about Tulsi Gabbard. When Tulsi Gabbard delivers this testimony, it's the 18 intelligence agencies that make up the Intelligence Community who have all signed off on this testimony. So, it's the considered view that the program had taken a very serious hit, and they hadn't restarted it. So, it wasn't just her view. So, her successor, you know, will have to do some tap dancing if this comes up again when he, you know, he is testifying.

BLACKWELL: Yes. All right, Peter, Colonel, thank you both.

BERGEN: Thank you.

LEIGHTON: Thank you.

BLACKWELL: Next, a look into Tulsi Gabbard's rocky tenure as DNI as she leaves the post and question swirl about that potential replacement. Plus, you know that Republican revolt over the administration's $1.8 billion fund? Yes, Senator Ted Cruz is revealing what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX) (voice-over): People were, the entire meeting, they were screaming at the acting attorney general.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: Another high-profile departure from the Trump administration. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, is stepping down. She says she's resigning so she can be by her husband. He was recently diagnosed with an extremely rare form of bone cancer.

Rumors were swirling in the White House the last few weeks that Gabbard was planning to resign but, as of two weeks ago, an official said that she was denying that she had plans to leave. A source says that she met with the president in the Oval Office today to deliver her resignation letter.

Gabbard has had a rocky tenure in the administration. She was seen as one of Trump's more unconventional, let's say, picks. A former Democratic congresswoman and a longtime skeptic of U.S. intervention abroad, her messaging often conflicted with the president, especially on Iran. She's the latest cabinet member to leave the administration, joining former DHS secretary Kristi Noem, former attorney general Pam Bondi, and others.

I want to bring in now Michael Isikoff. He has covered Tulsi Gabbard extensively. Good to have you in. So -- and we were talking during the break about this, her anti-interventionist core. And what the president has been doing in Venezuela and Iran and looking ahead to Cuba, was this doomed? I mean, was it writing on the wall?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, CO-AUTHOR OF "FIND ME THE VOTES", CONTRIBUTING EDITOR AT SPYTALK: Look, there has been talk for months that Gabbard's tenure was -- that she would soon be leaving, whether it was on her own accord or she would be forced out. It is worth -- look, let's take it on our word that her husband does have this illness --

BLACKWELL: Yes.

ISIKOFF: -- and that would be a reason to resign on its own. But you can't -- to put this in context, just remember, just a couple days before, one of her top aides, Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, resigned as well. She was also known as somebody who was opposed to the war in Iran.

[23:20:00]

And then that followed -- and before that, you had Joe Kent, who famously resigned just right after the war started. Joe Kent was perhaps our closest aide before he went to the National Counterterrorism Center.

So, you have to look at this in the context of what you have is basically a purge of anybody who was dissenting to the president's decision to go to war in Iran.

BLACKWELL: Yes. So, when DNI leaves in the middle of a war, one asked what are the vulnerabilities that are created by that absence. But considering the way she was or was not involved in this --

ISIKOFF: She was -- she was completely frozen out on Iran debate.

BLACKWELL: Doesn't make a big difference.

ISIKOFF: When the key decisions were made, when the president was meeting with his top advisors trying to make decision about whether to do this or not, she wasn't in the room. I think people knew where she was coming from, knew what her views were, and that sort of left her on the outside.

So, what she did instead was do everything she could to sort of cater and flatter Trump with all his conspiracy theories, and she did more than anybody else to promote the conspiracy theories that the president indulged both about the 2016 election --

BLACKWELL: Yes.

ISIKOFF: She accused President Obama of being part of a treasonous conspiracy to deprive President Trump -- then candidate Trump in 2016 and frame him on the Russia collusion matter. The material she released, needless to say, didn't come close to proving what she was alleging.

And then at the end of January, she flies down to Fulton County, Georgia to be part of this FBI in search of Fulton County ballots relating to the 2020 election. BLACKWELL: Which is far outside the purview of the DNI.

ISIKOFF: Completely beyond her jurisdiction as director of National Intelligence. She claimed -- she left the impression that this was because she had intelligence that there was foreign manipulation of the vote counts in Fulton County in Georgia in 2020. When the affidavit from the FBI got released that justified the search, there was not a word about any foreign interference, a foreign intervention at all.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

ISIKOFF: So, she kind of misled a lot of people to promote this conspiracy theory that really only had one audience, an audience of one, President Trump.

BLACKWELL: Talk to me about Gabbard's deputy, Aaron Lukas, who has more than 20 years of service in the Intel Community, will now serve as the Acting DNI. What do you know about him?

ISIKOFF: He is regarded as a professional as he worked at the CIA. He's not a MAGA zealot or ideologue. He's back to, you know, in communication with some people there today at the DNI, and they viewed this as a big sigh of relief.

Gabbard was kind of -- she was -- she was the DNI, but she had very little presence in the building. She kind of did her own thing, working with this small group, the directors, investigative group that has now been disbanded, that was -- that she was using to push out a lot of these conspiracy theories. But Aaron Lukas, you know, people see him as much more traditional intelligence professional.

BLACKWELL: Michael, talk to me about this trend that we've seen about the departures of women from this administration.

ISIKOFF: Yes.

BLACKWELL: We now have Tulsi Gabbard. We had Kristi Noem, we had Pam Bondi, we had DeRemer at Labor.

ISIKOFF: Right.

BLACKWELL: What do you make of this trend?

ISIKOFF: You know, it kind of speaks for itself, does it not? You know, you've had four resignations in Trump's cabinet, and they're all women. I think the fact that Gabbard's views weren't solicited or aired or she wasn't invited to the meetings, probably, you know, some might see a bit of male chauvinism behind that.

Why should we have to listen to her when, you know, there were people like Vice President Vance who had his own questions and qualms about this, and he was very much in the room, very much participated? But nobody wanted to invite Tulsi Gabbard to that.

BLACKWELL: Michael Isikoff, thank you. ISIKOFF: Sure enough.

BLACKWELL: Next, despite the Republican revolt, President Trump is defending his $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund. He says he's personally giving up a lot of money to help others. Well, my next guest agrees. We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: Critics call it a slush fund. But tonight, President Trump is describing his DOJ's anti-weaponization fund as an act of service. Here is how he is defending it in a post on social media. "I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced anti-weaponization fund to go forward. I could have settled my case, including the illegal release of my tax returns and the equally illegal break in of Mar-a- Lago for an absolute fortune. Instead, I am helping others."

[23:29:59]

An interesting way to talk about this, especially considering just a few days ago, he said he knew very little about the fund. Well, since then, the backlash has been growing every day. The government is now facing a second lawsuit to block the fund. But the president's biggest headache right now is this revolt by members of his own party. They're taking issue with the fact that the nearly 1,600 people charged with crimes related to January 6th could be eligible for a slice of the $1.8 billion.

Our next guest represented January 6th defendants in their criminal cases. Christopher Macchiaroli joins me now. Christopher, good to have you in studio.

CHRISTOPHER MACCHIAROLI, ATTORNEY, REPRESENTED JANUARY 6TH DEFENDANTS: It's a pleasure, Victor.

BLACKWELL: So, tell me, how many clients do you have? Because we've been talking during the break and the number is growing as it relates to people who believe they could receive some funds from this.

MACCHIAROLI: Yes. We are a deeply divided country. I would say half of the country thinks that during the previous administration, there was some weaponization and that people were, you know, falsely investigated or arrested. I've had represented and been appointed to represent a number of January 6th defendants. I represented police officers knowing that the Biden administration has the largest increase of prosecution of police officers.

There is a report that came out about a month ago about Catholic protesters being targeted, allegedly targeted in the prior administration. All these people are evaluating whether they have claims under this fund. I have cautioned everybody, it is too early to even think about this because we have lawsuits that have been filed, we have an ongoing election, we have Republicans even coming out against this fund while Democrats are very strongly and very passionately against it. So, I've questioned clients. This is a long way from anybody receiving any money. But to the extent that they believe they have a valid claim, they should prepare their source documents, they should outline their history, they should identify any damages that they may have.

And if there is a fund, I'm a lawyer, I'm not a politician, I'm not a, you know, partisan hack, I advise clients. If I believe that a client has a potential claim and it's something that they're eligible for, as a fiduciary, I have a right to at least assist them in that process.

BLACKWELL: I want to narrow and focus in on the January 6th attendees, the rioters there.

MACCHIAROLI: Sure.

BLACKWELL: How many, the ballpark, of those do you represent?

MACCHIAROLI: I had previously represented 12 January 6th defendants.

BLACKWELL: OK.

MACCHIAROLI: The majority of which I was appointed by a U.S. district court because they were indigent, couldn't afford legal counsel.

BLACKWELL: So, there are some who say that they should not, especially those who were convicted of violent crimes, be eligible for any of this money. To those people, you say what?

MACCHIAROLI: Well, first of all, I would say we don't know what the criteria is. There is a lot of political chatter about this issue. There may come a point where the criteria come out and it makes people who engaged in violent acts, used weapons, caused significant injury to officers.

And I actually looked at the stats earlier today in preparation for coming. And of the 1,600 defendants, only 11 percent were charged with either possessing a weapon or committing an act that caused significant injury. Now, those weapons most likely were O.C. spray. Some people used flag poles. Some people used more dangerous weapons. But 89 percent of the people who were prosecuted did not fall into that category. Majority of which were petty misdemeanors, walked into the Capitol.

I would never have gone into the Capitol. I would not have joined in the crowd. But that was not a violent act, it wasn't stealing, it wasn't defacing. Some of those people went to jail with no criminal history, and they believe that they are, you know, have been targeted by the previous administration.

BLACKWELL: I want you to hear from Harry Dunn, former Capitol Police officer, current candidate for Congress in Maryland's fifth district. And this is what he said about the fund and the people who were there on January 6th, 2021.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRY DUNN, MARYLAND CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, AUTHOR, FORMER U.S. CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER: I equate what Donald Trump is doing right now to somebody paying a retainer fee for a lawyer. You know, when you have a lawyer, you pay a retainer fee for them to have them on standby when you need them. These payments, I believe, serve as a reward and also an incentive to say, you know what, look what they did, and now they're getting paid for it. Donald Trump has our back. You know, if we stand with him, not only will he forgive us and we won't get in trouble, but we could potentially be rewarded for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: What do you think about that?

MACCHIAROLI: I think Officer Dunn has every right to be upset that he is one voice. He was there at the Capitol. Anybody who assaulted police officers should be shamed for their conduct. But this account, this fund, we don't even know the criteria, we don't even know what the eligibility is, we don't know how many people are applying, we don't know if these were companies that were investigated.

[23:35:02]

I know some January 6th defendants will apply. I think it's premature to say that the entire fund should be thrown out simply because there is strong opposition to those January 6th defendants that committed violent acts. And we all acknowledge that did occur. And it was outrageous. But there was a vast majority of individuals that don't fit into that criteria.

BLACKWELL: All right, we'll see if the lawsuits and the legislation to stop it are successful or what happens next. Of course, there is this revolt in the president's own party, as we discussed. Christopher Macchiaroli, thank you for coming in.

MACCHIAROLI: It's a pleasure, sir.

BLACKWELL: All right. Back to that infamous meeting between the Senate Republicans and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche about this fund. Senator Ted Cruz reveals tonight fiery does not begin to cut it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRUZ (voice-over): There were fireworks at an epic level. And I got to say, it's one of the roughest meetings I've seen in my entire time in the Senate. There were a lot of Republican senators who were just pissed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: All right, let's bring it now former adviser to President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, Mark McKinnon, and CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein. Gentlemen, good evening to you. Mark, this anti-weaponization fund, we know that Todd Blanche wants to be confirmed as the attorney general. Do you think this takes this off, the table, for him?

MARK MCKINNON, POLITICAL STRATEGIST, FORMER ADIVISER TO GEORGE W. BUSH AND JOHN MCCAIN: Well, it's a pretty good asset test to be defending Donald Trump. You know, it's so striking to hear Senator Cruz be so vocal about what went on inside that meeting. I mean, for anybody to buck Trump, much less do it publicly. And apparently, Cruz was just one of 20 to 25 Republican senators who were outraged about this.

You think about it. You just think about the politics of it. If you're a Republican senator or congressman running for reelection or running for election, personally, you have to defend against the Iran conflict, you have to defend the higher prices, higher inflation. And now, you have to deal with first the ballroom they bailed out by -- they may pay for by taxpayers. And now, they have to defend a slush fund that will would reward January 6 rioters. That's just -- that is too much to take, and there's no wonder there was riot in the caucus.

BLACKWELL: Yes. The reflecting pool, that was supposed to cost $2 million to repaint. Now, the president says it will be less than $20 million, tenfold overrun there. Ron, the question has been at some point and not just for this term but since the president was inaugurated back in 2017. What would be the breaking point? And as they go to this last midterm in his presidency, is this appearing to be it? I mean, half the conference, the reporting says, stood up and said something during this closed-door meeting.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. Look, this was clearly too much for many Republicans for really obvious reasons of not only, as Mark said, it's kind of policy and moral reasons, but also political reason. I mean, Trump keeps giving Democrats bullet points for their core argument in 2026. What is the core Democratic argument in 2026? It is that you elected Donald Trump to solve your cost of living problem, and all he has done is make it worse through the tariffs, the war and gas prices, the cuts in federal health care assistance while enriching himself, his family, and his allies.

And as Mark said, you know, go through the list. The ballroom. Now, this slush fund for including people who attacked police officers on January 6th. I mean, the degree to which he is putting them in an intolerable political position, you know, you really can't overstate it.

But I will note that Michael Whatley, who is the Republican candidate in North Carolina as opposed to the senator already from North Carolina, you know, came out in defense of this today. The other side -- yesterday. The other side of the coin is what Trump has been able to do in Republican primaries.

So, you still see a lot of Republicans reluctant to differentiate or disagree with him on any front. But this certainly seems to be too much for anyone, especially in any kind of competitive race.

BLACKWELL: And also, Mark, the president said that he gave up a lot of money for the anti-weaponization fund. He says that he could have settled the case, including a legal release of his tax returns and illegal break in of Mar-a-Lago for an absolute fortune. The president just said earlier this week he didn't know anything about this.

MCKINNON: Well, that's absurd. I don't think anybody believes that.

[23:39:55]

I mean, look at the agreement now that not only protects Donald Trump going forward from any audit or investigation from IRS, but it protects his entire family. So, he's got a get out of jail free card to completely defy the IRS for the rest of his life and his family. So, the original case was absurd and absolved. This only amplifies it even more by rewarding criminals who've been convicted.

BLACKWELL: Ron --

MCKINNON: That's a tough one to defend (INAUDIBLE).

BLACKWELL: Ron, the president calls out, as he often does, Senator Thom Tillis, who is now becoming more vocal as he's retiring as the senator there from North Carolina, calls Tillis a nitpicker for criticizing the fund. Tillis warns the stupid stuff is killing our chances in the midterms. You talked about Michael Whatley, but talk about the vulnerability of Republicans come November as the calendar is really influencing a lot of what we're seeing.

BROWN: Look, during Donald Trump's first term in the elections of 2018 and 2020, out of all the Republican Senate incumbents and challengers for the Senate, Susan Collins in 2020 was the only Republican in a Senate race who won in a state where Trump's job rating was net negative in the exit polls. She was the only one. She was the only one who won more than eight percent of voters who disapproved of Donald Trump in a Senate race.

So, you know, I mean, that's what you're looking at. And, you know, if you are running in Ohio or Alaska, much less Maine and North Carolina, Michigan, Georgia, all of these places with competitive Senate races, the high likelihood where we are now is that Donald Trump is well under 50 percent. And, as I said, Republicans are caught between the rock and the hard place.

On the one hand, if you differentiate from him in any way, you get these social media thunderbolts like Tillis is getting now, it doesn't matter as much to him, because he's retiring, which could depress Republican turnout. If you don't differentiate from him, you are lashing yourself to a ship that is going beneath the waves in your state, given that his disapproval is well over 50 percent, I think, in just about every competitive Senate race right now.

BLACKWELL: Mark, the White House said that this war with Iran would last four to six weeks. Tomorrow starts week 13. Cost of living for Americans is up. Obviously, gas is $4.55 a gallon. And now, the president is considering new strikes. How would restarting this kinetic element of the war, an unpopular war, land with voters?

MCKINNON: Well, I mean, Victor, that's the problem. One of the main planks that Trump ran on and main reason why many people support him was his pledge to stay out of foreign conflicts. Now, he started this one on his own with the help of Bibi Netanyahu. And so, now, he's deep in a conflict.

And listen, if these were resolved tomorrow, it appears that the only way it would be resolved -- there's no way that there's -- even with the kinetic action, even with any sort of diplomatic agreement, it doesn't seem that there's going to be any outcome that's going to be better than when we started it.

So, Trump will not be able to say -- he may say the war is over, he may say they surrendered, he may say we won, but the fact of the matter is the Democrats will be able to say, well, we are no better today than we were when we started. In fact, we're much better off. We're much worse off than we were when we started.

BLACKWELL: Mark, Ron, thank you both. Next, a teacher hangs a black baby doll in a classroom of middle schoolers and, allegedly, she thought it was a joke. The students did not see a joke there and neither did the school. One student's mom joins us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: This is a disturbing story. What you're about to see is offensive. It's racially offensive. Here's what we know. A teacher at a school outside of Tampa, Florida, apparently frustrated that her students were not paying enough attention, confiscated a doll from a student. And here's what she did with it. She tied a charger cord around the doll's neck and hung it from the T.V.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Now, if you could not see well enough from the video, here's a still image. A black baby doll hanged in a classroom of middle schoolers. One of the students in the room says the mood immediately changed from nervous laughter to the students then educating the teacher about why this is racist. The student says the teacher then took the doll down.

We reached out to the school. They say the teacher has been terminated, effective immediately, and the incident has been reported to the state. Here's a quote from this statement. "We want to reiterate that we do not tolerate conduct of this nature. We took immediate action and responded swiftly to ensure the situation was handled appropriately." We also reached out to the teacher, but have not heard back.

Two mothers of students in the classroom corroborated this incident with our team. Let's speak with one of the mothers now. Nina Williams is here. Also, with us, the president of the Hillsborough County Branch of the NAACP, Yvette Lewis. Nina, first, your son sent this image to your family group chat. When you saw it, what was the first thing that went through your mind?

NINA WILLIAMS, MOTHER OF STUDENT WHO RECORDED VIDEO OF TEACHER HANGING BLACK BABY DOLL: When I first saw it, I went into a panic. The first thing that came through my mind was I need to go get my baby.

[23:49:57]

I immediately had thoughts of things that have occurred in the past with many of our children that did not end well. And I just went into a panic, went and picked my other little ones up from their school, headed straight to his school, and called the school and told them, remove my son, I want him in that office. Now, I'm on the way.

BLACKWELL: Yes. And you said you had to go and get your baby. Was it because of your concerns about his physical well-being, his psychological well-being? Why did you need to be with him immediately?

WILLIAMS: Both. Both. I was afraid that they would find out that he had this recording because he made very clear that they did not know he had it. I was afraid that they would probably get him in a room, take it from him. I honestly heard him -- all types of thought. It was horrible thoughts that were going out. I thought the worst. And my thing was I got to go get my baby and protect him, and make sure we protect this footage.

BLACKWELL: And he knew to start documenting right away. What do you think about his wherewithal, his presence in that moment to think of getting documentation of it and for speaking up?

WILLIAMS: I am so proud of my son. I teach my children to speak up. I've always been that person. And I teach them that, you know, when something is wrong, you know, do what is necessary, to either, you know, telling that person -- I'll speak this way, telling it to my seven-year-old -- telling that person, don't be afraid to speak up if you see something that you know is not right or is inappropriate, or this is just something you know is not supposed to be done --

BLACKWELL: Yes.

WILLIAMS: -- don't be afraid to be that voice to say what needs to be done and to correct the situation, or to go and let someone in authority or in -- it's so hard to say someone in authority because it's like, hey, it was his teacher.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

WILLIAMS: This is the person that's supposed to go to.

BLACKWELL: Yvette, Nina's son told some news outlets that the teacher explained that she meant this as a joke. I doubt that you see this as a joke. When you see that black doll hanging from the T.V., what do you see in the image?

YVETTE LEWIS, PRESIDENT, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY NAACP: I saw terror. I saw intimidation. I saw honestly what was she thinking. And I just -- a look of disbelief. You know, our kids don't deserve that. That's how they kept us in control by then, but I refuse to let them do that now. So, that's a way of intimidating African-American people. And I was definitely appalled by it.

BLACKWELL: Nina, are you satisfied with how the school administration handled this?

WILLIAMS: Yes. They did act quickly. And I applaud, you know, the principal, Mr. Finch, for going in and making sure that every -- everything was done. He did take protocol immediately. And within 48 hours, she was out of there. So, yes, I am satisfied with that part, but that's just one step towards many big ones.

BLACKWELL: So, let's talk about potential next steps. Yvette, the teacher, as we know, has been fired. The school says they have counselors available for the students. Is this chapter closed or what are those next steps that you're looking for?

LEWIS: By all means, this is not closed. So, we have received several more phone calls from parents regarding this teacher and regarding the practices that's going on after at that school. So, this has just been brought to my attention. And you trust and believe that the NAACP Hillsborough County Branch is definitely in the process of investigating this. So, I am in deep conversation with the school district about this.

And so, this is something that we will not stand for in Hillsborough County. This is something that our children, like I said, do not deserve this. They deserve to learn in a free and safe environment.

[23:54:59]

BLACKWELL: Well, CNN has not been able to verify allegations of any other incidents involving this teacher or the school before this took place, but I know that you will be working to help those students there in Hillsborough County. Nina Williams, Yvette Lewis, thank you.

LEWIS: Thank you.

WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. You're welcome.

BLACKWELL: Thank you for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)