Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump and Vance Try to Sell Iran Agreement; Obama Calls for Hope Over Despair at Presidential Center Opening; DOJ Wants to Block Reparations Program for Black Residents. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 18, 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: -- off their chest, things that they can't stop thinking about, and some things that they probably should not be saying out loud. You can stream the show any time with an All Access subscription in the CNN app or @cnn.com/watch. See you there.

And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the vice president tries to sell Trump's Iran agreement, and here's how that's going. J.D. Vance just delayed his trip to Switzerland to lead new talks. Plus, Barack Obama's message to the country and his not-so- subtle shade to his successor as the stars show up to celebrate 44's legacy. And the DOJ takes aim at reparations by suing the city that became the model. That's tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, President Trump may have an agreement, but he doesn't have a sale. He doesn't even have a final deal. What he really has is a 60-day negotiation window, a bunch of open questions, and furious Republicans accusing him of surrender. But if you ask me, he didn't think he gave up anything at all.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: What have you learned about not just the exercise of power, but the limits on your power as a result of the conflict?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: There are no limits.

CAPUTO: No limits?

TRUMP: No. I haven't learned that lesson yet. I know there are, but, you know, there are no limits. We defeated them totally, militarily.

CAPUTO: Beginning of conflict, you had talked about you only wanted unconditional surrender. And --

TRUMP: Well --

CAPUTO: -- the MOU doesn't look like unconditional surrender.

TRUMP: Well, it really probably is unconditional surrender.

CAPUTO: It is?

TRUMP: I think so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Why? Nothing about this agreement suggests unconditional surrender from Iran. They still have missiles, fast boats, mines. They've shown they can bring a fifth of the world's oil supply to a screeching halt. A final deal may let them have some version of a civilian nuclear program. It could give them access to frozen assets and hundreds of billions in reconstruction funds.

Trump, he even acknowledged that yesterday. But, look, don't expect him to back off what he has said in the past even if it's totally different than what he is saying right now because that has been his playbook, never give an inch. He has written about it.

There's actually a better metric to measure how much the White House is struggling to sell this as a success and an unconditional surrender. Just look at who they're sending out as the top salesman here to sell. It isn't President Trump. It's Vice President J.D. Vance. Forget art of the deal. Let's call it the defending the deal tour. Interview after interview. And today, he took it right to the White House briefing room.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: There's a lot of discussion, the MOU, the gentlemen's agreements, the final deal. Words don't matter, ladies and gentlemen. We're about verification. They promised a number of things, and that's why the deal contemplates a number of benefits if they do those things. But it doesn't do anything if they don't actually meet those promises.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Yes, verification is important, but so are the words. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but words absolutely matter. I mean, imagine if you said, forget the exact terms of the contract, don't even read it, only what you do matters. Well, if the words don't matter, how do you know what I'm doing is wrong or a breach? How do you assess and assign a penalty to me? Where is the proof that we had the meeting of the minds that you now want to enforce against me or I can enforce against you?

The words are important because this whole fight is about what phrases like enrichment levels, nuclear capacity, what they actually mean. And you better believe that when negotiators sit down to hash all this out, they're going to be fighting over every word because the words matter. And if Iran complies, they get benefits that are outlined in writing. If they don't, they don't. Consequence outlined in writing. But the words of the deal define what they're complying with and what they stand to gain or lose.

And Vance, of all people, should know that words do matter. But learning his messaging over last year's strikes on Iran's nuclear sites didn't sit well with Trump. A new book from reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, they say that Trump wanted everyone using one word. It says, "Trump told one associate, 'everyone needs to say effing obliterated.' That's the word. Everyone just needs to copy what I say. Obliterated."

[23:05:06]

The words matter to the president, certainly. And now, he's leaving it to Vance to bridge a gap between Trump's victory language and the deal's fine print.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) VANCE: You know, I've seen skeptics of the deal. People say the Iranians will never change their behavior. Well, maybe that's true. And if so, they don't get any of the benefits of the bargain. But isn't it worth trying?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, and a sign of how things are going, we're getting word that Vance is no longer trying to travel to Switzerland tonight for negotiations. Why? Well, the White House says -- quote -- "The logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable." That's the conversation.

I want to start with Democratic congressman, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith. Congressman, glad to have you here.

All right, now, I understand the phrasing of give it the old college try for things not as serious as war and diplomacy. But Vice President Vance is essentially saying, what do we lose with trying? I don't think that's the right question here. That's really about the beginning of negotiations. And the war perhaps, with the idea of mitigating the loss after you have tried, seems an odd framing. Are you comfortable with the administration's framing to the American public that this is just let's try it?

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA), RANKING MEMBER OF HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: I'm not comfortable that President Trump has been saying things that are just clearly not true about. Well, it really is unconditional surrender. It's none of those things. So, the fact that the president is sort of disconnected from reality on this is troubling. As you enter into those negotiations, there's no surrender here.

Basically, what Iran has said is they will open the strait in exchange for certain compensation and that the details of that are being negotiated out in the next 60 days. There's nothing even in the agreement that says that those parts of it go away if they don't resolve the nuclear issue. That's not made clear in the MOU. The MOU is pretty straightforward. It's debating how much to pay Iran to open up the strait. We must all remember that the strait was open before the war began.

So, this war very clearly didn't accomplish our goals. It put Iran in a stronger position because they learned they could leverage control of the strait to gain a considerable amount of power at a very low cost.

COATES: You know, this is the Memorandum of Understanding. I'm glad you remind the audience of that. We know there is a 60-day window for negotiations that are going to unfold and maybe iron out or present additional details that might mean this is better than people think, maybe. But what is your red line here? I mean, is there a specific concession of this agreement that you believe should not be on the table, no way, no how?

SMITH: Well, there's a couple things about this. I don't have a particular red line. Actually, Michelle Goldberg had a really good column about this. When Trump started this war and it didn't work in the first three or four weeks, it was baked in that this was going to be a failure for the U.S. How big a failure? That depends on the negotiations.

I'm in favor of stopping the war because I don't see how we're going to get to a better position by continuing the war. And the costs are enormous, certainly for the global economy, but lives lost, the disruptions across the Middle East. And towards what end? How is bombing Iran for another week or two or three going to fundamentally change anything? It's not. So, I think this is the best of a series of bad options that were created by Trump's stupid decision to start a war that was inevitably going to lead us to right where we're at.

Now, I think we should try to minimize how much relief we give to Iran. I'm troubled by the fact that the MOU talks about getting rid of all sanctions and a $300 billion payment to Iran. On top of that, it seems to me we could limit the compensation in exchange for opening up the Strait of Hormuz. We just don't have -- well, to use one of Trump's favorite phrases, we just don't have the cards here --

COATES: Well --

SMITH: -- and because of the decisions Trump made that put us into this corner.

COATES: You do have congressional power, and you've got the card of being able to be a check on authority. But you heard the president says he does not believe that there are any limits to his power. The Supreme Court is wrestling with a decision right now that we look to have maybe next week on the limits of executive power. But Vance is quite confident that the administration can temporarily lift sanctions without Congress. How would Congress respond --

SMITH: Yes.

COATES: -- if they do act alone?

SMITH: Yes. Well, they shouldn't. The law says that we have to lift those sanctions. There are some exceptions that I have to get into specific, sanctions where the president has the authority to waive them. But very clearly, the president doesn't understand where we are at in this negotiation when he says yes.

[23:10:01]

If he had unlimited power, one would think that Iran's nuclear program would be gone by now, that their support for terrorism would be gone by now.

And again, I'm going to come back to something I said earlier. The fact that our president is so completely disconnected from reality that he can say there are no limits on his power even as Iran is vividly showing him the limits on those power, on his power, that means he doesn't know how to handle the real world in terms of the power he has and the power he doesn't, and how to leverage what he can instead of fantasizing about things that he clearly cannot do. That's going to make this negotiation even tougher over the course of the next 60 days.

COATES: Congressman Adam Smith, thank you.

SMITH: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: I want to bring in some more context to this. Never want to talk about these important issues in a vacuum. I've got CNN political commentators, former deputy Pentagon press secretary under the Biden administration, Sabrina Singh, and Republican strategist Brad Todd.

Brad, let me begin with you here. It's an understatement to suggest that Republican lawmakers are not impressed with at least the outlines of this MOU right now. The damage control that is beginning is quite apparent to the American public. If Trump is really losing the Republican room, can he get it back?

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think it would depend on how the final agreement is shaped out. You are right. I mean, Senator Roger Wicker, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, today issued a pretty scathing review of the deal. And the other members of Congress who I speak to have similar opinions. That's a pretty widely held view.

I think I haven't had anyone tell me they think it's a good deal among Republicans. And I think that the White House already has problems in the U.S. Senate. The president and the Senate Republican conference have been at war over several things. He still has a lot of things he needs. He would like to do reconciliation again. He would like to have more appointments and confirmations.

COATES: Does this drain that goodwill to get that done?

TODD: I think it's already on thin ice. I think this is a really big problem. The Republican members of the United States Senate are considerably more hawkish perhaps than the coalition at large is. I mean, it's a -- I say that as somebody who is pretty hawkish. But most Republicans still, even though there are some who are less hawkish than the senators, were for this war. They want to see Iran brought to heel. They want to see Iran's leadership crushed and the Revolutionary Guard displaced.

And so, that's a broadly held view among Republicans. I mean, aside from some 20-year-olds and three or four bloggers, every Republican think that, and Rand Paul. So, therefore, this is kind of a resounding view to violate here, is that we're stopping short in Iran.

COATES: Well, Israel comes to mind as well, from many people talking about this in full context of others who are less than impressed with at least the outlines of what's going on. I mean, Vice President J.D. Vance, many were surprised he said this not-so-subtle statement about Israel. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time. And he happens to be the head of state of the world's superpower. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: An interesting approach. Don't bite the hand that feeds you is essentially his statement there. I mean, are you surprised that he made that statement publicly? And what does it say about the dynamic between the two countries if that was so said?

SABRINA SINGH, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR, FORMER DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: I was surprised by that statement. I mean, we've seen many administrations have, you know, public spats with Netanyahu and the Israeli -- you know, different Israeli ministers. I mean, certainly when I was in the Biden administration, we had disagreements. We did not air it like that so publicly. I think --

COATES: Because the risk is?

SINGH: I mean, you are further isolating an ally. And Israel is one of our greatest allies in the region. Israel is also isolated on the world stage. And their conduct after, you know, their persecution of the war in Gaza, I think, on both sides of the aisle led to Israel being further isolated. And also, people are asking questions. Is that the right way to prosecute the war against Hamas?

But now, you know, to see J.D. Vance take that statement from the briefing room, from the podium at the White House, I mean, that shows how frustrated they are. And I think this is the Israel in all of these.

This MOU, the reason why J.D. Vance is not going to Switzerland is partly because Israel is still conducting operations in Lebanon against Hezbollah. And one of the first clauses in this MOU is that there's a ceasefire on all fronts. The problem is that Israel is not a signer to this MOU. So, Israel is conducting operations, putting this ceasefire MOU at risk. That's why he ultimately had to pull down his trip. I think he knew he had to pull down his trip, and he was voicing his frustration.

COATES: You know, he's on -- Trump has said that, in Politico's reporting, Vance has embraced his role of chief defender of the agreement.

[23:15:01]

I mean, he's on a book tour, so he has to be out there for a variety of reasons.

SINGH: Quite a book tour.

COATES: It's quite a book tour. I'm sure you're thinking, really, now? But yes, now. And the war is very unpopular among Americans, period. Republicans are not thrilled with the MOU. But there was one White House ally who supports the deal who said that it is fascinating to watch Vance's biggest enemies in the GOP unwittingly inoculate him from that liability by branding him as responsible for the peace deal.

So, the idea of this being a political strategy, of him being in the forefront, do you -- do you buy that?

TODD: I think -- I think, first off, I thought he had a tremendous opportunity when he was put in charge of the negotiations to fix one of his problems. He's not seen as hawkish enough by a lot of Republicans. He thought the war was bad and the deal is good. Most Republican primary voters thought the war was good and the deal is bad. So, I think for someone who might want to run one day, this is a pretty precarious position. I thought he had used the opposite. I thought he would use the negotiations to shore up his hawkish side.

And I think on Israel, you know, I've worked on this issue professionally with groups who try to support the U.S.-Israel relationship. I can tell you, Republicans really support Israel a lot. Rank-and-file Republicans do. It's the holy land. They're our partner. It's the most democratic place in the Middle East. It's the key to stopping a lot of our enemies. I don't know that this move to go against Israel is politically smart for somebody who wants to run a Republican primary.

SINGH: I don't think it's necessarily going against Israel. It's Netanyahu and his government. I think people have an issue with how not only the war and Netanyahu has prosecuted his, you know, the ongoing military operations within Gaza, but expanding it out into Lebanon, and then, of course, presenting the president with this plan that, you know, we just cut off the head of the snake and the regime is going to fall and all the chips are going to fall into place. And I think people are angry on both sides of the aisle.

It's not Israel. It's not the Israeli people. It's the government and how the management of this war has been done. COATES: It will be interesting to see how you're able to convey that to the voting public and think if it's a distinction without a difference or not.

SINGH: That's the challenge.

COATES: Sabrina, Brad, thank you both. Stick around because we have questions from all of you out there, comments from viewers at home who are texting 818-972-7272. Give me your first name and your city or state so I know who I'm talking to.

Next, the stars come out for President Obama's Presidential Center in Chicago as Obama himself and former first lady Michelle Obama deliver a message to the nation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: People aren't looking for perpetual anger and division. They are looking for fairness and common sense and mutual respect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Democracy can be frustrating. It can be slow. It can be inefficient. And yet more than anything, I hope this center will serve as an affirmation of just how special, how precious our democracy truly is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's, of course, President Obama opening up what has been dubbed a home for hope, the Obama Presidential Center on Chicago's south side. All living presidents and first ladies were there except the current occupants in the White House. Many of the Trumps were not invited. But his presence loomed large at today's event. And as expected, Obama reminded people of his ability to captivate an audience. But he also reminded people to keep hope alive about American democracy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I am not immune to anger or doubt. But I do know this. When we lose faith in each other, we open the door to the most ruthless or the most careless or the most fearful among us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Let's talk about it with Michael Eric Dyson, distinguished university professor of African American & Diaspora Studies at Vanderbilt University, and CNN political commentator Jamal Simmons, who worked on the Obama campaign as well.

Michael, I will begin with you here, professor, because President Obama did not mention President Trump, but he did mention some other Republicans. He mentioned Mitt Romney, the late John McCain. Why do you think his speech is resonating with so many people today?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, PROFESSOR OF AFRICAN AMERICAN & DIASPORA STUDIES, VANDEBILT UNIVERSITY: Well, thanks for having me, first of all. Because it reminds us by implication, by inference, just by contrast of what we're missing: High intelligence, tremendous pedigree, respect for protocol, the ability to evoke common rituals that unite American citizens across race, class, gender, sexuality, geography, and religion.

A man whose high intelligence is put to use for the people noticed every moment of this celebration talked about. This is not just about Barack and Michelle, this is about all of America. They were drawing a sharp contrast to a megalomania, a narcissism, a myopic self- preoccupation that has ruined the nation in so many ways. They were here to remind us that we must elevate our vision and our aspirations to a level that they used to routinely do. And I think that's why he was a major in signifying. I ain't got to say your name to say your name.

COATES: Well, here's a split screen because on the same day as his speech, we learned from an upcoming book about President Trump that he showed the authors a document that was arguing he was more powerful than Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao, Hitler. I mean, what does this say about how differently these two men view how presidents lead a country, Michael?

[23:25:01]

(LAUGHTER)

DYSON: It's unspeakable. The fact that he would be to take pleasure in that kind of contrast and comparison, the fact that he would see himself as an imperial figure shows that his addiction and attraction to strong men undercuts the value and virtue of American democracy that Barack Obama reminded us, that no person is above the law, neither should anyone fall beneath its protection. That kind of message reminds us of the kind of man we had when Barack Obama was president.

President Trump has all but forgotten the historic character of the American presidency at its best. And what we saw today was a sharp contrast between two competing styles that in the main suggest that one is about American democracy and uplifting the people, the other is about a kind of kleptocracy that only fuels his own self-image and enriches his pockets and those of his family.

COATES: Jamal, I want to bring you and your mind here because Michelle Obama's speech, it grabbed a lot of attention, as she often does. JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER COMMUNICATIOS DIRECTOR TO VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Yes.

COATES: I mean, this is an extraordinary woman in her own right. And she was not so subtle about references that she made about their journey and experience. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHELLE OBAMA, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You were doing the people's work: Rescuing our economy, expanding health care, ending a war, ordering the bin Laden raids, saving an auto industry, winning a peace prize.

And the higher standard that comes with all that. The claims that a U.S. senator and constitutional law expert wasn't qualified for the job. The lies about your birthright, your faith, your patriotism. The outrage when you stated the biological fact that if you had a son, that he too would be Black. Yet you were unflappable at every turn.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: She often never commented on some of the things that were happening around in the commentary and the outlandish critiques that she has pointed out. Were you surprised in that shift in tone? And what does that indicate going forward?

SIMMONS: You know, I have always respected the fact that she has been able to go through this journey, at least in public, and not dignify some of the worst things people have said about her. And they all have. I mean, we've seen some bad magazine covers. We've seen people say horrible things. Even recently, people have said horrible things. But she has found a way to assert herself and to assert her perspective without dignifying the people who come for her in that way.

You know, I think about -- there was a moment today when Bono was singing. I'm not going to sing for you because I can't do that.

(LAUGHTER) But the refrain of the song was, oh, you look so beautiful. I think he was talking about another woman. At one point, he said, America. And then he went into, over and over, oh, you look so beautiful, Michelle. Oh, you look so beautiful, Michelle. He must have said it 10 times. And it was a big pushback at that UFC fighter that came for her. And I think every one of the people who saw that today could see the emotion in all of them as he kept singing the refrain. When President Obama got up and spoke, he had a little bit of a wink to some doubt that he may have had.

The only critique I have of Michelle Obama's speech is that I wish she would have given us a little bit more of an insight of moments of doubt or moments where they didn't know what was going to happen and how they wrestled with that because I spend time with young people and they so often think that those of us who are on television or who make it to the presidency, that everything has gone perfectly and swimmingly well for us along the path.

But when they find out that we've made mistakes, they find out that we've had to bounce back, it gives them some ability, some confidence that they, too, can recover from whatever mistakes they've made in their lives.

So, I wish we could hear a little bit of that today while we also celebrate the victory of the Obama presidency.

COATES: Well, raise your hand if life for you ain't been no crystal stair.

(LAUGHTER)

Thank you very much. Let me ask you, though, the idea that there were so many celebrities there. You know, Trump in his first campaign, he tried to weaponize the association of Obama as a magnet for people. His charisma attracted celebrities that Trump had not been able to win over in any way, shape or form, even now. He tried to equate it with elitism, that he was rubbing elbows with the likes of Hollywood.

Does the presence of the people who perform today, is there something that Democrats will prepare for in terms of how to respond to the way that will be used?

SIMMONS: Listen, God bless C&C Music Factory and the Village People.

[23:29:56]

But I think seeing Stevie Wonder and John Legend and Common and Jennifer Hudson and all these big celebrities, Bruce Springsteen on the stage, it was a way that brought America together, different genres, different looks, Black, white.

It was just a part of what was special about the Obama era, which is that we felt like finally, maybe we can all do this together. And the president, President Obama, spoke about that today when he said America didn't start off this way. We had a democracy in words, but it wasn't actually in reality. And it wasn't until we fought and moved and made changes that we actually may, we the people, include all of us.

COATES: So compelling to hear everything today. And from both of you, I always enjoy picking both your brains. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Jamal.

Up next, the Justice Department targets Evanston, Illinois with a rare move meant to stop the city's reparations program. The city's mayor is live with me to respond, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: The Trump administration is firing a new shot in the battle for reparations. It is suing to stop the only program in the country paying out reparations. That's in the sleepy Chicago suburb of Evanston, Illinois. The program gives out $25,000 to Black people who are direct descendants of Evanston residents from 1919 to 1969 and who experienced housing discrimination because of city policy.

But the DOJ argues it violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. And this week, it moved to stop the program and argued -- quote -- "The Constitution almost never permits a government to discriminate on the basis of race. Such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny." That quote the DOJ used in this lawsuit comes directly from the Supreme Court ruling that gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

So far, the Evanston program has paid out more than $5 million to more than 200 people. But all that could come to an end if the DOJ gets its way.

Joining me now, the mayor of Evanston, Illinois, Daniel Biss. Actually, I think we have an issue with his audio. I want to get him. I want him to explain the significance of this important moment. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We're back with the mayor of Evanston, Illinois, Daniel Biss. The DOJ is suing to block reparations in Evanston. Mayor, what's your response to the DOJ's claim that your program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

MAYOR DANIEL BISS, EVANSTON, ILLINOIS: Well, here is what our program is. We did a lot of research, going about specific act taken by the city on purpose to, for example, disinvest in segregated majority African-American neighborhoods and invest in segregated white neighborhoods. That created a wealth gap that exists today, that people are suffering from today. We created a program to address that gap, repair the harm that we caused. That's just repaying a debt that you owe.

COATES: The DOJ argues that, look, anyone can apply without any evidence that they actually experience discrimination. Do you support the fact that the program should be narrowed in order to shield it from federal scrutiny? What do you think?

BISS: I think we did a really good job of designing a program specifically to address the harms that we caused as a city. And there's research on this that's published, that shows that we caused broad harm because of the acts that we took. We designed the program to repair that harm. And I think that's exactly what people ought to do. When you harm someone, when you incur a debt, you ought to repay that debt. And I think, you know, there's a reason this program is broadly supported and really not that controversial across races in Evanston, because people here know that when you owe somebody something, you ought to pay it back.

COATES: The program started -- what? Five years ago? And it has already paid out nearly 200 claims. What has been the impact of this program on the city and what will be the impact if the program ends?

BISS: Well, there has been two different types of really important impact. The simple one is that people who were owed restoration for the harms that were caused to them have begun to receive that payment and have begun to receive help addressing their housing needs that were caused by the city.

But the other thing that has happened is that people in Evanston now trust that their government is going to actually take on our problems, is going to tackle things, even if they're controversial, even if they're tough, even if they're first in the nation because I think that's what people ought to expect of their government, solve hard problems and be willing to be bold instead of just cowering in a corner and allowing problems to fester.

COATES: There are other cities that are considering restoration programs. A lawsuit like this might make them a little bit afraid to go forward. What do you say to those leaders who may see this lawsuit and decide it's a deterrent?

BISS: Well, I understand that. I've been incredibly proud to see hundreds of municipal and state and other leaders come to Evanston from around the country and even around the world to learn about our program and to think about how to fashion something that would work in their own communities.

What I would say is we were all elected to solve tough problems. We weren't elected to duck away from tough fights. We weren't elected to say it's too hard, don't bother. I think that folks in positions of power need to use the power they have to address the issues in their community.

Unfortunately, what we've seen is the Trump administration is saying we don't want you to address racism, we don't want you to try to make your communities more equitable, we want you to be too frightened to take steps. Don't fall for that bait.

COATES: Mayor Daniel Biss, thank you.

BISS: Thank you.

COATES: A legal fight over how to tell the story of slavery at one of America's founding sites is taking another turn.

[23:45:01]

A federal appeals court has ruled the Trump administration can replace a slavery exhibit at the president's house in Philadelphia, the former home of George Washington. The exhibit memorializes the nine enslaved people who Washington held there. The Park Service first removed the panels in January, but a lower court ordered them back up the next month. Today, the appeals court threw out that order, saying the city of Philadelphia had standing to sue, but that its claims did not merit blocking the Park Service from moving forward.

We've been getting tons of questions from all of you throughout the night, and we've just got the people to answer them here. A reminder for those of you at home who want to participate, you can text us at 818-972-7272. Give me your name, city, state. Let's go right to it. Sabrina Singh and Brad Todd are back.

All right, one viewer asked this question. Do you think Obama should get out more on the campaign trail during the midterms? Sabrina, what do you think?

SINGH: I do. You know, I think President Obama has a very high approval rating. And it's at the highest. I think it was even -- a recent CNN poll showed that his approval rating is the highest among all living presidents right now. President Obama has a way to ignite the Democratic base. And I think you saw that today with the opening of his center. He inspires people. He inspires hope. And, yes, you know, he already served his time, but he still motivates the base.

And so, I think you will see him deployed on the campaign trail. I think people are going to use him. And then, of course, there's always 2028. I'm sure he'll be out there for that as well.

COATES: We also want to see Michelle.

SINGH: Yes.

COATES: Curt from Detroit asked this question. Why does Trump keep blaming Obama for all his failures? Brad?

TODD: Well, it's deep ideological divide in this country. And, you know, most of us on the Republican side think of Barack Obama as a tremendous failure and that most of his instincts were ideologically wrong. Democrats thought the same thing about George Bush when Barack Obama came in. This is the nature of the partisan swings of our country at a time when the parties are pretty far apart.

COATES: All right. Emilee from Berkeley, California asks, what do you think the Obamas were trying to convey by inviting and sitting with all the living presidents at his event? Sabrina?

SINGH: You know, I think it was very pointed that these are living presidents that rally around the idea of America and espouse the same values. Donald Trump has gone after every single one, including Barack Obama, and has questioned whether he's, you know, a U.S. citizen to just, you know, tweeting that horrible video of him and Michelle Obama. So, you know, what's the point of extending an invite to President Trump?

COATES: All right. Ben from New Jersey asked this question. What are the odds Michelle Obama runs for the presidency in 2028? She seems to be very popular, even among Republicans I know. Brad, is she?

TODD: No. I think zero chance because she has seen it up close, and I don't think she has the patience to put up with a lot of things you have to put up with in politics. And you have to put up with a lot more than you did in 2008 when they first ran.

COATES: That's an interesting point. Different times. We'll see. James from Atlanta, you asked this question. If the nuclear program isn't actually resolved in this deal and is just punted to future talks, what exactly did we win? Both of you, take a stab.

SINGH: I think that's a great question. I think that's actually the question that many lawmakers and many people around the country are asking. What do we get out of this? And that's the reality. We don't know. Right now, we have 14 points on a page-and-a-half document. We have no idea where that leads to the nuclear deal. We have no idea who's going to get that highly-enriched uranium out of Iran. There's a lot of outstanding questions.

TODD: Well, I don't know that I think the premise of that question is right because the deal, hopefully, will end up getting the nuclear material back. That's the whole point. The president has outlined that from the beginning. I hope he sticks to it.

But let's play along with the questioner for a minute. The centrifuges are gone. Iran's military capability is much degraded. We've got a new alliance in the Middle East. Israel and the United States and many of the Arab nations came together. They all saw that Iran wanted nothing with any of them. Iran attacked everyone. That schism may shape things going forward. Iran may not have any other friends in the region.

COATES: Sixty days, and I wonder if it's enough to get all that worked out. We'll see. Thomas from North Carolina asks, now that Trump has demonstrated a weak foreign policy agenda, do you think the Senate will begin to grow a backbone and rein him in? Sabrina?

SINGH: Well, what you've seen, interestingly, this week is many Republican senators speaking out about this deal, from Senator Cassidy to Senator Wicker to others. And then, of course, Democrats, of course, have been saying that this is a bad deal to begin with.

But you are seeing Republicans begin to show that they have concerns about this. What is their power, though, and their leverage to change the deal? That, you know, remains in question because this is a negotiation that this administration is doing with Iran directly. They're not involving Congress, and they didn't involve Congress from the beginning when the president started this war.

[23:50:00]

COATES: Leverage, power or perhaps appetite. Shonte from Texas asked this question. How can we unfreeze all this money for an evil regime and have to pay for a ballroom and a green pool when we can't help our own people who are struggling? Brad?

TODD: Well, there's a lot in that question. The assets in question are assets that are Iranian assets that are being unfrozen. This is not a payment directly from the American government. This is Iranian money.

Now, as Republicans, we criticized that when Barack Obama did it as well. And I'm critical of it here. I don't think we ought to unfreeze the money. I don't think we ought to end the sanctions. I don't think we ought to promise to not do more sanctions. Those are the problems in this MOU.

COATES: In many ways, she described the concerns about the domestic agenda of the president of the United States. Interesting. Sabrina, Brad, thank you both so much.

I have a surprise update to a story we told you about last night on the show. It's about Luigi Mangione's murder trial in New York courts. It turns out Mangione won't mount a mental health defense, seemingly, after all. It's a total 180 from yesterday when his lawyers said that they would argue that he was suffering from extreme emotional disturbance. If a jury were to buy that, he could only get convicted of manslaughter, not murder. But today, his lawyers withdrew that defense with no indication as to exactly why, leaving the question, what will the defense be?

Up next, 53 years of waiting uncorked in New York as the city throws a party for the Knicks. We've got the sights, the sounds, and Jalen Brunson's must-hear message for you, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: This is our city. This is our team. For 53 years, we watched. For 53 years, we waited. Now, we've won.

(APPLAUSE)

One last time, New York, say it with me. Knicks in!

(APPLAUSE)

Knicks in!

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Two million New York Knicks fans packing Lower Manhattan to celebrate the team's first NBA title in 53 years. Players rolled through the Canyon of Heroes. They took center stage at the end of the massive ticker tape parade. Mayor Mamdani, which will be a trend now, that outfit, jersey, and then the suit, gave the team keys to the city, but not before Jalen Brunson got to call out everyone who doubted him. Hi, haters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JALEN BRUNSON, 2026 NBA FINALS MVP, NEW YORK KNICKS: There's a lot of people that have a lot of negative stuff to say. There's a lot of people who have a lot of opinions. But when you prove them wrong, you don't have to say (bleep) to them.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Oh, tell me more. I want to bring in my friend, Omar Jimenez, who I'm very jealous of. He had a front row seat to all of it. Omar, you do such cool stuff. What a day for that city.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR CORRESPONDENT: Oh, man. Oh, mam. It was such, such an incredible day. By the way, capping off what has been an incredible few weeks in New York City, I mean, just following the Knicks over these finals, it felt like every game, when they got closer and closer and the championship became a reality, people were losing their minds.

And I was talking to Mayor Zohran Mamdani earlier this week. I think he put it pretty perfectly, that the biggest city in the country felt like the smallest town in the world. You could just walk up to everyone. Everybody felt like neighbors. And it was just a friendly, friendly place, which you don't always get in New York City.

COATES: Reputationally, they say they're not. But New Yorkers always love being in New York. I mean, some Knicks fans, they're calling for one of the team's most loyal fans, Spike Lee, to get a ring. Stephen A. Smith says no Knicks fan deserves this more than him. Kevin Hart, he agrees. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN HART, COMEDIAN: Spike deserves a (bleeping) championship ring. And I'm saying it here, give Spike a New York Knicks championship ring.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You and I both spoke with Spike, I mean, leading up to the game. Is there anyone more excited than him? Can we see a commercial that says, it's got to be the ring?

JIMENEZ: Yes, exactly. First of all, I think Kevin Hart, who comes from his yacht or something like that, looked very comfortable. Yes. But yes. You know what? Spike, I mean, it's so incredible hearing just how long he has been a fan. I mean, literally, going back to the 70s.

He -- I remember him telling me about when he was a teenager back in 1973, and his mom didn't want him to go to the game. She wanted him to go to his dad's show, and his dad was like, no, no, no, you're going to go to the game. And it's something he has held on to ever since.

And he was talking about how, as he has gotten more successful, he has moved from the high up in the arena, and little by little, has made his way down, down to courtside, of course, where he has been so iconic over these years. He has been there every step of the way.

So, if anyone were to ever get a ring in terms of fans, I feel like he's got to be top of the list.

COATES: Jalen Brunson, I mean, that man, he won the championship.

JIMENEZ: Oh, man.

COATES: Untouchable now.

JIMENEZ: Yes.

COATES: What do you think of his message?

[23:59:55]

JIMENEZ: Well, you know, his message was a little bit in response to -- there was some criticism that came from WNBA great Becky Hammon, who basically said that you need a 1A superstar player to win a championship. And she said, he's not a 1A, he's too small. And he never responded to it, but clearly on his mind, and it all came out there. It was very clear.

COATES: He's like, who's too small? I mean, does the number 45 mean anything?

(LAUGHTER)

Have a great show, Omar.

JIMENEZ: Good to see you, Laura.