Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
U.S. Officials Downplay Text Of Iran Agreement As Incredibly Vague; Faceoff Set In Georgia Senate Race; Trump's Renovation Projects Facing Scrutiny And Setbacks. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired June 16, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: This room is like a confessional booth for all the familiar faces that you're used to seeing, saying what they probably shouldn't be saying out loud, things that they want to get off their chest and things that they just cannot stop thinking about. We talk about everything from sex and stealing to etiquette and happiness and grudges. Starting tomorrow, you can stream the show any time with an All Access subscription in the CNN app or at cnn.com/watch.
Thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the Iran agreement is still under wraps, but Trump's team is already trying to manage expectations by downplaying what's in the actual text. Plus, Trump hand-picked candidate wins big in the Georgia Senate primary, but can he turn a primary win into a November flip against a Democratic favorite? And it was supposed to cost taxpayers nothing. Now, Americans may be footing half the cost of Trump's White House ballroom. That's all coming up on "Laura Coates Live."
Well, my opening statement tonight, if your own administration is describing an agreement to end a war as incredibly vague, well, good luck selling it as lasting peace. You know, we still have not seen the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, but U.S. officials are already downplaying the language. And not just highlighting the vagueness. No, they're saying it's worded to help the Iranians sell it to their own domestic audience. Now, one part, it's sure to get a lot of scrutiny, a possible $300 billion reconstruction fund cited by the vice president, J.D. Vance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Even if the Iranians do everything contemplated by this deal, not a penny of American money flows to Iran. So, all these people say, well, you know, you're giving Iran money. No, no, no. We're saying that if the Iranians change their behavior, we're going to let some of these other countries invest in rebuilding their country and creating some prosperity for their people.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Part you can't ignore though is that Republicans, they blasted President Obama for years over his deal that unfroze Iranian funds. They've railed against any money going to Iran no matter where it came from, right? And Trump himself, he has long made that argument.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I would have never given him back the money. I would have said, the money is off the table, let's start negotiating. And you know what? I would have won that negotiation.
We can't continue to make deals like that horrible Iran deal where we give them $150 billion back.
The Iran deal was so bad. We paid $150 billion to sign a horrible agreement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, let's make this clear, all right, because the president wants you to think that President Obama just handed Iran $150 billion. That was always a false premise. It wasn't U.S. taxpayer money. It was Iran's own money, assets frozen under sanctions, and it also was not $150 billion. It was estimated to be around $50 billion. But I get your point, a lot of money.
Here's the kicker. Trump is trying to claim the same distinction he refused to extend to President Obama. This $300 billion fund would not be taxpayer dollars, but it would be economic relief for Iran. And this time, the number is even bigger. The money may only be the tip of the iceberg for many Republicans because they don't trust Iran to change anything at all. And they're also worried that this framework gives Iran a whole lot more than it gives the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R), LOUISIANA: Unless you were homeschooled by a day drinker, no one is confident that Iran is going to do anything. And it's unfair to hold anyone to that standard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: God, he's so funny. OK, it's hard to know how much even President Trump believes Iran will change because, depending on the day, he has described Iranian leadership as crazy or perfectly rational.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I say to them, I say, you people are crazy. I deal with them. They talk differently. I say, you're crazy. They're crazy people. You're nuts. You're not having a nuclear weapon.
And we're dealing with people that I think are very rational people. They were nice to deal with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And the biggest tell of all, it goes back to Vice President J.D. Vance. At the same time he's trying to play up the agreement, he's also planting the fallback argument. If Iran does not live up to their own end of the bargain, then no big deal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: Now, if they comply with this deal, I think it's much better for the United States and it's going to be much better for Iran.
[23:05:03]
But if they don't comply with the deal, the straits are still open, we've still done incredible damage to their nuclear program, and it's really, you know, we can get on with our lives as a country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, is that kind of argument that makes some everyday Iranians perhaps feel totally abandoned? One person in Tehran put it this way. "Even though Obama wasn't on the side of the Iranian people and chose to deal with the ayatollahs, at least he acted like a true politician rather than a businessman. We got what we saw with him. But with Trump, we really have been stabbed in the back."
Here to unpack a very fast-moving high stakes night in Washington, D.C. is our team of experts: Lead global security analyst for Washington Post, Josh Rogin, Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett, CNN contributor and New York Times journalist Lulu Garcia-Navarro, former senior communications aide to Senator Lindsey Graham, T.W. Arrighi, and Washington Post editorial board member Carine Hajjar. She's also a Steamboat Institute fellow. Welcome to the show, everyone. Glad you're here.
Let me begin with you, Josh, because, look, the Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, says that the G7 leaders, they are on board with this agreement. Regional countries are behind it as well. He actually calls it a game changer. Does that reassure you even though we have not necessarily seen it, number one, and that U.S. officials are privately describing the text as vague?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Sure. I think it's clear from the reporting that what we have here is a limited agreement to extend a ceasefire and kick all of the important issues down the road. And that's fine. That's a reflection of the reality of the situation whereby those hard issues can't be solved. Neither side wants to return to full on hostilities.
And so, this is the best that each side could hope for, which is we just don't return to full all-out war and we pretend like everything is fine and kick all the nuclear stuff and all the important stuff down the road. And everybody knows that Trump is bored of the war. Everybody knows
that he wants out. Everybody knows that he wants to cut any deal. He doesn't care what the details are because he's going to spin it as a victory anyway. And he sided with the Vance-Kushner-Witkoff camp, which wants to get out of this thing against the Rubio-Ratcliffe- Hegseth Camp, which wanted to double down, and that's it.
So, none of the goals of the war have been really achieved. None of this $300 billion of investment is real because none of those things are going to happen. But everybody, including Mark Carney, understands that as long as we can avoid a return to full escalation and sort of ease our way out of this thing, continue, that's the least bad outcome. It doesn't really solve anything, but it's better than the alternative, which is to double down on a war that's obviously not worth it.
COATES: But the alternative was also not to get into it --
ROGIN: Well, that would have been nice, but that ship has kind of sailed.
CARINE HAJJAR, FELLOW AT STEAMBOAT INSTITUTE, EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER AT WASHINGTON POST: It has.
COATES: Lulu?
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, JOURNALIST FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: The other -- the other issue which anyone who has lived or covered the Middle East knows is that, you know, memorandums of understanding are worthless practically because what ends up happening is that there are other players in the region who have different interests, i.e. our erstwhile partner in this, Israel, who is very unhappy with this deal. Part of this negotiation has to do with Israel's actions in Lebanon. They're saying, you know what, we're not getting out of Lebanon. This isn't -- you know, it's too important to our own national security.
And so, what you have here is, I think, very tentative, very vague for a reason. The vagueness doesn't bother me because I think that actually can strengthen things. It just allows people to be able to argue different things to their populations, which we're seeing right now --
COATES: For the next 60 days.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: For the next 60 days. But the problem that I see coming down the road here is that, you know, there are a lot of players here who don't want the same things.
COATES: Well, that's the devil in the details. You have people who don't want the same things, others who can sort of infuse their own logic and concerns, and the deal cannot have longevity. How can this be a win as Trump is trying to sell it?
T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUSH DIGITAL GROUP, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM AND MIKE POMPEO: Perhaps. It has been reassuring to see a lot of the Gulf states join in and say this is a step in the right direction. I'm sure they just don't want to see a continuation of hostilities. My mind has been spinning since I heard this, and I read the reporting about this. And obviously, we're all kind of guessing because we haven't seen the official text. We're just taking everyone's word for it here.
But look, Donald Trump, over the course of his two terms, has had a number of great successes. The defeat of ISIS. The Abraham Accords in his first term. Midnight Hammer was a great success, Maduro's arrest was a great success, and Epic Fury was a tremendous success. Our troops performed very, very well, which leads to a ton of other questions. Why did we stop when we did? The uprising he spoke about, where was that and where was that in the plan? He mentioned that he ran guns into Iran, but where did they go or did it not even happen?
[23:10:00]
The sanctions relief. He said -- J.D. Vance said, we will not be releasing money or easing up until they meet their deal. Well, we are hearing reports that that may have already been done.
COATES: Why do these questions give you pause? Is it because you have trust -- you're not trusting what they saying at this point or because the American people deserve these answers in real time? What is your ultimate point?
ARRIGHI: It's because I don't trust the Iranians at all. And I want clarity by the administration. Look, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt here in the negotiations because there's so much we don't know. I don't know the full team of Iranians that's there. Donald Trump loves saying they're the third string, but I don't know if anybody outside of the community has a full grasp on how this chain of command is operating.
So, it gives me pause because I don't trust the Iranians. I don't want them getting more money. We need to ratchet down their ballistic program. I haven't heard talk about that. I want to make sure they can't project power outside of their borders. We've done a great job decimating their military, but where do we go from here?
COATES: You know what? I hear you. I mean, I hear you answer questions, but the phrase $300 billion just keeps heckling (ph) in everyone's mind.
ROGIN: Yeah, but it's a fake number.
COATES: No, the vice president -- it might be a fake number as in like bajillion dollars.
ROGIN: Yes.
COATES: However, it is a number that the vice president said is actually a real thing.
HAJJAR: Yes. And they're trying to say, you know, this isn't U.S. tax money, so don't worry, everyone. But we know that when the Iranians have access to whatever funding, including their own frozen funds, they're going to use it to enrich their terrorist proxies. And so, this isn't just an issue that implicates the Trump administration's negotiations with Iran, this implicates Lebanon, I think the president, Lebanon and other -- you know, Yemen, Gaza, all over the Middle East.
And I think the president really risks -- first of all, I just don't think he needed to get into a deal at all. He had leverage. To your point, there was a military victory here or least mostly a military victory. He's squandering it for what is looking like a strategic failure.
COATES: Meaning you think he should have kept going with the military operation and not tried for a ceasefire?
HAJJAR: Well, let's even put the military question aside, just the blockade. The non-kinetic pressure was immense. The Iranian lifeblood, their oil exports, had gone from something over two million barrels per day down to 64,000 from February to just recently. So, reporting, I think, today was saying that tanks are already leaving. Iranians are bringing in money now that the blockade is being lifted. But we know where that money goes. They've shown us where that money goes, and it's going to go towards more terrorism.
ROGIN: I mean, it's a surrender, but it's better than, I think, a lot of the other options and it's cutting our losses essentially. But the real cost is not to the United States, it's to the Iranian people because Trump said help is on the way and help was not on the way. Now, this deal will enshrine the Iranian regime for generation with American support and cooperation and send a message to people all over the world who are brave enough to stand up to their dictators and despots that when America says help is on the way, that doesn't mean anything.
And that's the real cost of this, is that we've promised the Iranian people that we care about their lives. Now, we are throwing them to the wolves. OK, no matter what happens with the 300 billion or the Strait of Hormuz, those people will have to wait another several years before they get another chance at dignity.
COATES: You know -- but here's the thing --
ROGIN: And that's partially our fault for raising their hopes and then squashing them unceremoniously because Trump just changed his mind and doesn't care anymore.
COATES: If that's all true to the people of Iran or the United States, then the person who's out in front right now is the vice president of the United States, J.D. Vance. You know, we've heard about Obama, Obama, Obama when it comes to his previous agreement. But this looks very closely tied to Vice President J.D. Vance who is on the -- in the forefront of this.
ROGIN: Oh, yes.
COATES: That's a huge calculation. Some consider him maybe to be politically set up in this way, to have this, you know, Sisyphean task, frankly. But is this the political consequence, by having him out in front, or is that sort of in the weeds palace intrigue?
SAWYER HACKETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CONTENT CREATOR: I can't tell if this is like a punishment for J.D. Vance because he has been kind of out of favor with Trump and the kind of insider circle at the White House. But, you know, it's hilarious watching him defend this deal, which obviously we still haven't seen the text of, given the fact that he has been such a staunch advocate for avoiding these foreign wars. And now, he's got -- they're essentially just hanging this albatross around his neck ahead of 2028. It seems like this is Trump's doing, essentially saying you're going to go out there and defend this polished piece of crap that I put together.
(LAUGHTER)
And he's going to have to.
COATES: I put in a (INAUDIBLE).
HACKETT: Right.
COATES: (INAUDIBLE). There you go. What do you think?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think J.D. Vance could spin this. If the best-case scenario happens and prices come down in the United States and Republicans do well in the midterms, let's -- because this is really what this is all about. This is all about domestic concerns. This is not about caring about the Iranian people.
ROGIN (ph): Clearly.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: This is not about --
ROGIN (ph): Obviously.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes. I mean, any other thing other than the domestic concerns that face this administration at the moment.
ROGIN (ph): Trump's boredom.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, Trump's boredom, but also, I mean, the pressure that he's under, frankly. His popularity numbers, to say the very least.
[23:15:01]
And so, you know, what I think is if the best-case scenario happens, and I'm trying to polish that --
(LAUGHTER)
Let's make it --
HACKETT (ph): That's the word I didn't use (ph).
(LAUGHTER)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Sorry. Anyway, if the best-case scenario happens, he could sell it that he, you know, basically negotiated a deal that actually delivered the midterms to Republicans.
ROGIN: Yeah.
ARRIGHI: Well, he ended a war is how he's going --
ROGIN: Well --
(CROSSTALK)
HACKETT: After starting.
ARRIGHI: Well, he helped end a war, at a hand in ending a war. That is why --
ROGIN: That he started for no reason.
ARRIGHI: Well --
(CROSSTALK)
COATES: Hold on. He means the vice president.
(CROSSTALK)
ARRIGHI: Right, the vice president.
ROGIN: He created a mess, and then he half cleaned up his own mess. That's not an accomplishment.
ARRIGHI: I wouldn't say J.D. Vance did. I do think it took courage to take those strikes with Epic Fury, to take out the ayatollah when he did and had the timing to do it, and take out other senior leaderships. I think that takes a lot of courage. The question is everything that came after that and why it's this right now.
ROGIN: We replaced an 84-year-old ayatollah with a 54-year-old ayatollah.
(CROSSTALK)
COATES: Oh, wow! What a cliffhanger! Thank you, everyone. Stick around. We'll be taking your questions, of course, and comments tonight because in this program, we want to hear from you. Text us at 818-972-7272. Yes, that's the real number. Include a first name, your city, your state. The panel will take them on later in the show.
But breaking tonight, Trump's endorsement gets the job done again, this time in Georgia's high-stakes race for the Senate. So, what does it mean for his opponent, Democrat Jon Ossoff? And what's with all the 2028 buzz he's now getting? And later, from the ballroom to the reflecting pool, Trump's remodeling projects face some new questions tonight. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): So, what do you think about the reflecting pool behind you? How does it look?
UNKNOWN: Not good? No, it's not good. I mean, it looks green.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The midterm train pulled into Georgia tonight as Republicans decided who would face off in the hotly contested races for both senator and governor. In both races, they tested President Trump's endorsement power. You got the Senate runoff race. Trump's hand-picked candidate won. Congressman Mike Collins beating the former University of Tennessee football coach, Derek Dooley. Collins now will advance to general election where he'll face the incumbent Democratic senator, Jon Ossoff.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE COLLINS (R-GA), GEORGIA SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: We're Republicans now. We're going to have some robust primaries out there. Sometimes, we got some strong disagreements. But I can tell you one thing. Now, we stand united around one mission.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But Georgia Republican voters went a different direction in the governor's race. They chose billionaire businessman Rick Jackson over Trump's pick, Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones. He'll face former Atlanta mayor, Keisha Lance Bottoms, in November.
My panel is back with me. T.W., let me ask you because, look, the candidate that Trump endorsed beat the one Georgia's own governor actually endorsed and, of course, that's Derek Dooley. Georgia has always been a kind of unique anomaly in some respects when it comes to Republicans, whether they go Trump's way or not. Will those endorsements ultimately work in November?
ARRIGHI: Well, we'll have to wait and see. In this race, you have to remember, back in May, in the first iteration of the primary, Collins won by 11. Dooley just never really took off. Now, I don't know if that's because he coached at the University of Tennessee. I don't know if that was just how he ran his campaign. But he never took off and it just was sort of stuck in the mud. But he was a close friend of Kemps and Kemps had his back from the day he announced.
In the governor's race, now, that one is interesting because both Trump and Kemp last minute endorsed the lieutenant governor, Burt Jones. However, they are facing off against a billionaire who spent $130 million of his own money in that race. And that worked. Look, he's got a tremendous story. He cuts this grandfatherly image.
And I think he's going to be a handful for Keisha Lance Bottoms come November just given his resources, his incredible story, spending time in orphanages, building an entirely successful company from nothing. That's going to resonate, especially when contrasted by a Biden era appointee. She' going to have that hung around her the entire time.
I think the governor's race, better odds for the Republicans than in the Senate where even though the Republicans play a slight favorite, Jon Ossoff is in really strong position.
COATES: You seem to agree. You're nodding.
HAJJAR: Yes. And Collins is just not -- I mean, just down to the numbers. Collins isn't going in with the same amount of money that Ossoff is. I think Collins hasn't even broken $5 million last I checked in fundraising. So, that's going to be an uphill battle.
And I think that the Dems are looking at Maine, and they're really sweating. They need at least four seats to flip. And so, they're going to put a lot of money to make sure that they can hold on to the seat.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think Ossoff is in a good position. I mean, of all the people that could be, you know, running in this seat, he is a formidable sort of orator. He's already a known quantity. He's got name recognition. I mean, I do think that it's the Democrats to lose.
COATES: But he called Collins tonight a bigot an anti-Semite. He called him corrupt. And, of course, Trump also endorsed other candidates who had some pretty questionable backgrounds like the Texas A.G., Ken Paxton, for Senate. Is Trump hurting or helping the Republican chances by his attachment? You talked about the strength that potentially Ossoff has.
HACKETT: Oh, he's definitely hurting their chances. I mean, like, you look at this primary and really the only kind of litmus test for Trump was whether or not the candidate denied the 2020 election. That's why he ended up endorsing Collins.
[23:24:57]
And yes, he's going to end up facing off against Ossoff who is a strong, articulate, young, handsome, formidable candidate, who is already being talked about as a potential 2028 candidate because he's able to kind of put together this message that's both populist but also kind of speaks to the corruption element of what's going on in the White House right now. The contrast between somebody like Ossoff and Collins will be crystal clear for voters in November.
COATES: Trump looms large in all these races. He certainly has an endorsement. I mean, Democrats are looking at and thinking about the potential for winning, especially when you've got, well, speeches like this that Ossoff has made. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D), GEORGIA: Just listen to this. Last September, the president of Kazakhstan calls Donald Trump and says he wants to grant tungsten mining rights to an American company. And the very next month, Eric and Don Jr. get a stake in the American company pursuing the mining deal. The Mar-a-Lago mafia has taken American corruption to spectacular new heights.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: When you hear this and the way that he is -- I mean, who can bring up tungsten and have a winning argument in a campaign? Shout out to the periodic table. But let me ask you on this point. It's W, by the way. It's a science project when I was in high school. Thank you. When you think about this and hear that message, why is that cutting through in ways others cannot? Because the idea of Trump on the ballot and focusing on corruption or fraud or other matters when he has won twice doesn't seem to have the same level of adrenaline for voters.
HACKETT: Yes. I mean, honestly, I think it is mostly kind of his charisma and his articulation that's able to kind of cut through the noise. I mean, all of us on social media have been screaming about Trump's corruption for a year. And it has been hard to get voters to even perk up about, you know, billions of dollars that Trump has lined his pockets with over the past year.
He has done so, you know, both with the kind of spotlight of a Senate race, but also, I think, just incredible political skills. You know, as a freshman senator, he, you know, ushered through a lot of legislation. He has kind of been Democrats' like go-to messenger when it comes to articulating the corruption, you know, message, but also building it around, you know, a positive affirmative vision for the country that I think sounds like a 2028 candidate. It doesn't necessarily sound --
COATES: What about independent voters? I want to hear your views on this because that -- I mean, we hear about Democrats and Republicans, but we know there's this new CNN poll that reveals 47 percent of Americans call themselves independent, and they do not identify with either party. How does that impact the way these types of races must be approached?
HAJJAR: Well, I think -- I'm just curious to see where this is coming from because it could be coming from the right, from Republicans. A lot of people feel that the president hasn't fulfilled a lot of his promises from the economy to the Epstein files, or if it's folks who are still -- if the Republican Party is still having an exodus of Republicans who are the type of people that president would call rhinos, more established Republicans. So that matters. And I also wonder from the left, from Democrats, how -- if people still think the party is too far to the left. Some polling suggests that that is still the case.
But to Ossoff in particular, I think that it's not just that he's a charming and great orator. And that's not the only reason he's getting people's attention. This is coinciding with the president's just plummeting approval on his handling of the economy, not only with independents, not only with Democrats, but even some of his core constituency, including non-college educated white voters. Less than a majority right now approve of his handling of the economy. So, I think all of these things are coming together and really hurting the president right now and helping young and articulate Democrats.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And I think the coalition that Trump built in 2024 is fraying. Georgia is a really good example of that. If you -- it's a population with a lot of Asian-Americans, a lot of Latinos, a lot of African-Americans. And so, he managed to claw away a lot of that group in 2024. That coalition, if you look at polling, is no longer there in that same way. And so, I think it's going to be a sort of anchor around the neck of any Republican.
ARRIGHI: I would push back on that slightly. If Donald Trump was on the ballot in Georgia this upcoming November, he's the odds-on favorite to win Georgia. YouGov just came out with a poll today about the generic ballot. Democrats are bleeding on the generic ballot. They are up two currently. In 2018, according to YouGov today, in 2018, they were up 14. Hispanics, these are up four. In 2022, they were up 21. In 2018, they were up 40. In the young vote, they were up 11. In 2022, they were up 28. In '18, they were up 35.
The problem is, don't mistake Donald Trump's unpopularity currently for Democratic popularity. They still are dogged by what Rahm Emanuel said was woke and weak. And the party is still seen as that.
[23:29:57]
Ossoff's plus is that he has kept his head down for a lot of these this term and done a lot of work in the state. That has helped him.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But that's why I'm saying it's not a generic ballot, right? I mean, when you look at the generic ballot, sure, if you're looking at it that way. But we now have the candidates, and that's why I'm saying, like, I just don't see it.
ARRIGHI: (INAUDIBLE).
COATES: Stand by, everyone. I saw you sneak that in. Up next, the algae strike back after millions of dollars and countless minutes spent promoting it. Is one of Trump's favorite projects all mucked up? Plus, a report reveals that yes, taxpayer money and a lot of it may be needed to fund the ballroom. Will Americans be on board? We'll debate it, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, remember when the president insisted that the White House ballroom would be completely funded by private donors?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're donating a $400-million-dollar ballroom. Myself and donors are giving them free of charge, for nothing.
We did this no charge to the taxpayer whatsoever.
Rich people and people are putting up the money. Zero taxpayer dollars.
We're on time, on budget. It's going beautifully. I have all the money I need.
It's all donors. There's not one dime of government money going in to the ballroom.
We are making a gift. This is a gift. This is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, tonight, a new report from "The Washington Post" is calling that into question, including the promise that costs would not exceed $400 million. The Post obtained copies of internal estimates from contractors that -- quote -- "estimated the total construction cost at $600 million -- with more than half coming from taxpayers."
The White House gave a statement to "The Washington Post" insisting private donors are still footing the bill. But the reporter who broke the story told Anderson Cooper that taxpayer funds were already being used even while the White House claimed otherwise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: So, even early on, while the president was saying no taxpayers would be paying money for it, the government was already, the administration was already using taxpayer money for this?
JONATHAN O'CONNELL, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST: Yes. And, you know, they're continuing to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: My panel is back. Also joining us, chief Washington correspondent for MeidasTouch Network, Scott Macfarlane. Let me start with you, Scott, because, look, the idea of taxpayer funds was already problematic for Republicans. People took issue with this, Democrats, too, by the way, even before this report came out. So, what's the mood now?
SCOTT MACFARLANE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, MEIDASTOUCH NETWORK: Hasn't changed. I mean, this thing didn't fly in the Senate when there was an estimate of $1 billion needed to be spent or appropriated for the Trump ballroom. And the mood is not going to shift based on this new estimate.
Here's the thing. The politics in this are just terrible. It's a ballroom. You think of the Monopoly man with the top hat and the monocle or some type of use of taxpayer money that's not wise and judicious when we're all paying, I'm sorry, $6 for a box of cereal. This is not the time to be spending this type of money on a project that's called the ballroom.
The White House is going to argue, and they have been arguing, this is also a security apparatus. And they're going to argue, Laura, that the UFC threat alleged by the Department of Justice is another reason they need a ballroom, because public venues are too vulnerable. But it doesn't change the politics.
COATES: And, of course, courts are deferential to a president talking about national security concerns about the way in which he operates. Sawyer, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said that he hadn't actually heard from the White House about the report. But he argued that now, security requirements, they're a fair game.
HACKETT: I mean, that's -- they're citing security requirements so that they can use taxpayer money to pay for it. I mean, I remember -- I remember when this was not going to touch the East Wing at all. This was going to be a separate little small event space, not touching the East Wing. Then, we bulldozed the East Wing. It was a couple hundred million dollars. Now, it's $500 million, $600 million. I mean, this thing is going to cost in the billions by the time it's actually put up.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Oh, yes.
HACKETT: I mean, there's no chance this thing doesn't get into the billions. What are we talking about here? Again, it's a ballroom for his private donors to have these events, to have a bunker underneath that he can use for God knows what, to have a drone port on top. What are we talking about here?
If I had told, you know, T.W. is not our resident maggot offender here, but if I had told you a year ago that, you know, Trump would bulldoze the East Wing and build a ballroom for a billion dollars, I think people would have said that I had Trump Derangement Syndrome. They're not -- that's exactly what's happening.
COATES: What do you say?
ARRIGHI: I'm actually -- I've been pro-ballroom this entire time. My only thing is I think you should be upfront about the cost of it. Now, I know the president is saying there's new security parameters. And to the point about the UFC fight, the question is whether or not -- you know, that's like a direct relation. But it's outside. It would be better if it was inside, et cetera.
But beyond all that, there have been several presidents who have complained about the lack of space and the lack of functionality at the White House. It's not a big building. If you go to the East Room, it's not that big.
COATES: But who should pay for it? Taxpayers? ARRIGHI: Well, first of all, I'd like to see that line itemed out. I know we can't see everything because a lot of that is secret. But I'd like to see what's lined up. What is -- what are private donors paying for? Is it just the --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And who are they? And who are they? And what are they -- do they have business in front of the government?
[23:40:00]
I mean, there's all sorts of things about this that are very problematic. And beyond all of that, I just love the fact that people are now having to say they're pro-ballroom and anti-ballroom.
(LAUGHTER)
This in and of itself is a political problem.
ARRIGHI: Right. I just want you to be open and honest about it. That's my take on it. If I donated money for something that will be standing for a hundred years, I'd be proud to put my name on it. In the White House, there have been greenhouses, there have been office buildings that have been knocked down on the property. It changes all the time. I think it's fine.
COATES: Speaking of greenhouses, let's talk about algae, if we can. You could comment on this as well because, of course, there has been a lot of money that has been spent. The president tried to make the American flag blue. We know now it's green again. Thanks to algae. That's an actual video of what we're seeing. He spent seven straight minutes just last week when talking about renovations during a bill signing. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have a safe city now. We also have a beautiful city. We had 22 fountains. Every one of them didn't work. Nineteen twenty-two, it was built. It was called the reflecting pond or the reflecting lakes. So, we sandblasted the surface. We fumigated it. We took out 11 dumpsters, big dumpsters full of garbage.
When you have something that's 2,500 feet long, this tremendous expansion, who would think of this? Only person that does it like me. We did a much bigger job than originally planned because once we put that in, it looked so good. The sidewalks outside didn't look good anymore. Now, we're doing a new surface on the World War II fountain because the surface is so bad.
But everybody is looking at that reflecting pool. I can't believe it. It reflects. We used a dark blue. That's where Martin Luther King made his great speech. And they say he had a million people. I had more people than him. But they said I had 25,000 and he had a million. But I'm not going to argue with Martin Luther King.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Yes, please, don't. Could you just reflect on this notion? It doesn't even reflect him. I mean, this is not what he had in mind. And, obviously, nature is good in nature (ph). But the fact that he's focused so much on this to the exclusion of the transparency that T.W. is talking about in terms of the ballroom, etcetera, why such a fixation here as opposed to I think what people really want to hear about?
HAJJAR: Yes. Look, this is another case of the president slightly understating the cost. I think this was around $14 million. He said it was going to cost much less than that. That's fine, though. I just moved to D.C., and I realized the fact that algae growing in a body of water when it's 95 degrees out is not a surprise. The president can't --
(LAUGHTER)
-- can't exactly control everything. That's OK. But, again, like the president likes to oversell a lot of his points. Now, I will say I was there a couple days before the algae bloom really spread. I went around talking to folks in D.C. not only about the reflecting pool and what they thought about the project, but also some of the fountains, Meridian Hills, some of the renovations the president has done around the city.
COATES: What do they say?
HAJJAR: Quite popular. And this was from people on all sides of the aisle saying, look, we know that politics are attached to this because Trump is attached to this, and he can be polarizing just because he is a part of something, but it's really nice to have working fountains in D.C. And literally, everyone said that to me.
COATES: When you hear that, I mean, Scott, the idea of thinking about -- there is the popularity of improving the infrastructure in any city, of course. I think people have an issue with the seeming prioritization of topics like this when people have more pressing issues like questions about the war, ceasefire, questions about expenditures and beyond.
MACFARLANE: Sure. People who live in the District of Columbia, count me among them, can't afford the rent. I mean, so, you want to spend money on a reflecting pool and on a monumental arch and on other vanity projects. He may be showing priorities that are misaligned. If you watch the bottom of the screen, you're going to see the D.C. primary results come in, and the candidate who ran most vehemently against Donald Trump is routing the competition in the primary for the nomination for mayor.
HAJJAR: But can I just say that President Obama also spent millions of dollars renovating the reflecting pool. And I think that what I heard from D.C. residents was it is just nice to live in a nice city. People want to live in a nice and beautiful city.
COATES: Of course.
HAJJAR: I really just don't think there's anything political about this. I think that the --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Drain does swamp. That's what I have to say. It's green. Drain the swamp.
ARRIGHI: Let's -- as you just said, President Obama, when he did it, it was $34 million. It was $34 million, we were in two wars, and it was a year and a half after the economic crisis. So, sorry if I'm not --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But you know what the difference was? There was an entire system that went through it. It was appropriated money.
ARRIGHI: And he wasn't building a ballroom. He wasn't building an arch.
HAJJAR: It took a lot of time.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: No one is saying that nothing should ever be fixed. Again, it's the manner in which you're doing it. It's the idea that he's like getting his pool guy from New Jersey to do it. You know, all that kind of stuff.
HACKETT: And overpaying them and not having -- no bid contracts.
ARRIGHI: I feel it. No bid contracts, I'll go with you with. But, however, I just don't think this is a story at all.
[23:44:59]
No one has complained about Meridian Hill Park, Malcolm X Park. No one has complained about Columbus Circle. They look gorgeous.
COATES: Yes.
ARRIGHI: The president needs to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Abraham Lincoln continued renovations on the U.S. Capitol in the middle of the Civil War because we are a great nation and we don't project that we can't upkeep our capital city in the midst of a crisis.
COATES: And we can all agree that Abraham Lincoln's only priority during the Civil War was upkeep.
ARRIGHI: It's definitely not.
COATES: Everyone, stand by. Up next, it's your turn at home to drive the conversation. The panel is getting ready to answer your questions. We're getting a lot of interesting ones about Vice President J.D. Vance, keep them coming, 818-972-7272. Give your name, your first name, city, state. Back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Let's get your questions on this election night. And a reminder for those of you at home who want to involve yourselves here in the show, of course, just text us at 818-972-7272. [23:50:02]
Give me your first name, city or state, and your question. My panel is back with me to take on the questions. First, Brett from Georgia asked this question. Is there a scenario where Republicans win the House and the Democrats win the Senate? Lulu?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Probably the other way around. I think there's a scenario in which they lose the Senate and win the House. But I -- you know, I am having a lot of trouble reading what's going to happen here. I think it's -- anyone who tells you that they know what's going to happen is very mistaken. Don't trust any of the pundits.
(LAUGHTER)
Because -- no, I think -- I think the electorate is showing that they're -- that they're -- that they're confused about what it is that they want exactly. And so, I think -- and they have a lot of different options. Platner in Maine. It's all very -- it's not straightforward.
COATES: Interesting. An anonymous viewer asks, I don't understand why left and left-leaning politicians can't figure out why and how to get the majority of Trump voters to flip. Sawyer?
HACKETT: I mean, a majority of Trump voters to flip is a lie. It's a big question. I mean -- but the modern Republican Party is a party of Trump. And so, it's kind of a cult of personality and it's really hard to break people out of a cult.
So, I mean, flipping a majority of Republicans is going to be difficult. I think we flipped a lot of Republicans already. I mean, I don't know that there are many Republicans in D.C. that would proudly call themselves Trump voters. But, you know, I think as we get closer and closer to the midterms, you're going to see a lot more people breaking away from Trump. Maybe they'll stick with the Republicans in the Senate races or the gubernatorial races, but I think they're breaking with Trump.
COATES: All right, Julie (ph) in Novato, California asks about the war with Iran and the agreement and says, could the panel comment on where the $300 billion reconstruction fund is coming from? T.W.? Panel?
(LAUGHTER)
ARRIGHI: An awesome question. I wish I had an answer for you. It's great to hear from you, by the way. But according to what we have heard, the Gulf partners and other people are going to put up the money, not the U.S. taxpayer. However, I have some questions about that, and I don't really think it's going to happen. So, it remains to be seen.
HAJJAR: I also have questions about not so much where the money comes from, but where the money goes.
ARRIGHI: Wait. Was that about Iran or was that about -- COATES: Iran.
ARRIGHI: OK.
(LAUGHTER)
ARRIGHI: (INAUDIBLE) the ballroom, and I'll say, hey, what?
COATES: Let's go on to Georgia. Gwen in Georgia asked this question. Why the great concern for the ballroom when president was content with the security provided open air UFC freedom 250? Carine?
HAJJAR: I'm not really sure what the zoning and codes are around UFC fights. It's hard to see where you would put that in the White House. But again, I think the idea of a ballroom itself is not a bad one. I think at some White House events right now, I haven't been to the White House, maybe others can chime in, but, literally, dignitaries use porta potties on the grounds for big events.
So, I think it's fair to want a space where you can put hundreds of people in the White House. I think it's fair to raise questions about the safety around these events as well. But, again, the president does himself no favor by misleading the American people about the cost and the process.
COATES: Sean (ph) in Sanford, North Carolina says, do you think Republicans will speak out more against the president to have a better fighting chance in the midterms or the online?
MACFARLANE: It's all relative. It's going to be a muted speaking out, whatever there is of it. You've seen a little bit of that. Republican voters in Georgia just nominated through the runoff a person Trump did not endorse. I'm looking at certain states where there are multiple races that are competitive. Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia. These are the places where you'll see some breaches with Trump if there's going to be anything that's declarative and not subtle.
COATES: Bruce in Seaside, California asks, if J.D. Vance was the prime negotiator for the United States in the Iran deal, that's in quotation marks, I for one certainly hope he does not run for president. That's interesting, Lulu, given how many are associating him with the face of it, that it might have political consequences.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, I think it will have political consequences. I had an interview with Tucker Carlson, who is an ally of J.D. Vance, and he told me quite boldly that he felt that this was going to be an albatross around J.D. Vance's political fortunes and the Republican Party writ large. And this is coming from an ally of the vice president. So, I don't like his chances.
COATES: Unless he gets it done, I suppose. Fran in Tifton, Georgia asks, is it Marco Rubio better suited for the Iran negotiations than J.D. Vance? T.W.?
ARRIGHI: Fran, I hope you voted today.
(LAUGHTER)
Look, I advocate for Marco Rubio to do just about anything. I think he's an incredibly skilled diplomat. I think he's a skilled statesman. I think, though, having the vice president of the United States, the number two in the administration, sent a very strong message of commitment, we'll see what that signing ceremony looks like and who shows up.
[23:54:58]
Obviously, Marco comes from a more hawkish wing of the party. Who knows what it would have looked like after that. But you will not hear me say Marco should not always be the face of the administration.
HACKETT: He has already got five jobs.
COATES: Ray from Georgia asks, after the MOU is signed, will U.S. troops be removed from the region? Well, actually, not quite because the administration has already said it plans to keep its military presence in the region throughout that 60-day negotiation window.
Let's go to Brian in Maine who asks, you mentioned Iranian lack of trustworthiness. I'm curious why anyone in the panel feels the behaviors of our current administration is trustworthy on a global scale. Carine?
HAJJAR: I just -- I don't think that you can draw any comparison between a population that literally would -- a leadership that literally would kill thousands of its own people. That's what we saw from the Iranian -- the evil Iranian regime around the new year. And in this country, we have the privilege to speak out against injustices we see in our government. So, we're quite blessed.
COATES: Everyone, thank you. Thank you to all the viewers who had their questions. Love interacting with you in that way. Hey, "The Story Is" with Victor Blackwell is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
