Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Federal Workers Face Critical "Buyout" Deadline; Pam Bondi Launches "Weaponization Working Group" At DOJ; Trump Administration Walks Back Gaza Takeover Plan; Trump Signs Ban On Transgender Women In Women's Sports; FCC Publishes Transcript Of "60 Minutes" Interview With Harris. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired February 05, 2025 - 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: A very interesting day tomorrow when Trump and Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu go over to Capitol Hill for a visit.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, the clock is ticking for workers across the federal government to take a buyout. But is Trump's offer legit or is it an offer they can't refuse? Plus, Attorney General Pam Bondi launches her day one directives and threatens to fire anyone who puts their own political beliefs ahead of the Trump administration. And the Trump team walking back the president's plan to take over Gaza. And it begs the question, who knew about it beforehand? This plan? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
All right, in just about what? Twenty-four hours? You got roughly two million federal workers having to face a very dramatic choice. Either you accept Donald Trump and Elon Musk's so-called fork in the road or you venture down the path unknown. They face a midnight deadline tomorrow to resign and accept a so-called buyout. I'll tell you why I say so-called in a moment. And if they don't, well, they then run the risk of getting caught up in widespread layoffs. We know at least 40,000 workers have taken up the offer so far. But unions and state attorneys general, they're warning not to take the bait. They argue this likely isn't even legal.
In just a moment, I'll talk with someone who has seen this movie crash and burn before when chair presented former Twitter employees who were there when Musk took over, making it X. This time, he's using the same playbook to reach deep into the federal government. Already, DOGE has its paws in USAID, essentially dismantled, the Treasury Department, NOAA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. DOGE now has access to the agency's systems. And tonight, Musk is claiming -- quote -- "big money fraud is happening there," the Labor Department, even the Transportation Department. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says the DOGE team is going to plug in to help upgrade the aviation system. And those are just the agencies we know about. Musk's wrecking ball is swinging so quickly and so forcefully that Democrats are frankly struggling to respond. They've held rallies against him, yes. They've attacked him on his own platform. And today, they tried to slap a subpoena on him to force him to testify before Congress. Now, Republicans, main budge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): It feels as if you all have just decided that you all are going to castrate your constitutional duty and hand it over to someone who was unelected.
REP. YASSAMIN ANSARI (D-AZ): Donald Trump and an unelected billionaire, Elon Musk, are illegally dismantling our government, agency by agency, and illegally stealing your data, your money, and your services.
REP. TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ (D-NM): Musk and his DOGE, I like to call it dodgy because they seem to dodge any kind of authority and accountability. They are intent on destroying our federal government and the essential services it provides.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: As for the response from the White House, Trump's press secretary says Democrats have no ground to stand on because Americans knew exactly what they were getting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: They don't even know what they're talking about. Because President Trump was elected with a mandate from the American people to make this government more efficient. He campaigned across this country with Elon Musk, vowing that Elon was going to head up the Department of Government Efficiency. And the two of them, with a great team around them, were going to look at the receipts of this federal government and ensure it's accountable to American taxpayers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Our next guest is an employment lawyer representing 2,000 former Twitter employees doing the company over severance, as well as handling over a dozen class action lawsuits related to the company's treatment of workers after Elon Musk acquired the social media platform. And now, she's hearing from federal workers facing so-called buyouts. Shannon Liss-Riordan joins me now. Shannon, tell me what you're hearing from federal employees tonight.
SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, REPRESENTS 2,000 FORMER TWITTER EMPLOYEES: I've been getting lots of questions from federal employees over the last week. They're in this very difficult situation of trying to decide what to do with their careers, how to respond to the so-called fork in the road email that they got last week.
COATES: The so-called fork in the road on that point -- I mean, federal unions have actually been warning employees that there are no guarantees here, calling it a bad deal, calling it a scam.
[23:05:04]
Is the offer legit and is there any recourse if they don't end up getting paid?
LISS-RIORDAN: Those are some very good questions. And I was asking -- I was being asked very similar questions by Twitter employees back in November of 2022 when they got this mysterious email with the subject line fork in the road.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
LISS-RIORDAN: And the answer is that we don't really know. I understand that there is a lot of concern about whether the president and whether Elon Musk even have the authority to make this promise to the employees. And we don't really know. Congress hasn't authorized funding through September. We've heard that there may be challenges to the government paying out employees for months when they're not doing work. So, there are a lot of unknowns.
But on the other hand, there are also unknowns on the other side because the president and Elon himself have issued not so veiled threats against so many workers at government agencies that layoffs are coming, that terminations are coming, that terminations for cause are coming. So, it's a very difficult situation that employees are in, and they've got to make a really tough choice now by tomorrow.
COATES: Are there any lessons learned from what the Twitter employees endured?
LISS-RIORDAN: I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned. We are pursuing more than 2,000 cases on behalf of Twitter employees right now, and I do believe that there is still a law. We have a legal system in this country, and there's recourse when representations are made to people and it's not carried through. It is trickier to sue the federal government than to sue a private company.
COATES: Yes.
LISS-RIORDAN: That said, it is hard for me to believe that if the U.S. government purportedly, through OPM, makes this promise to employees that they'll be paid through September, and then if that gets reneged on, I think there should be recourse for these employees. But there are no guarantees. The Twitter employees similarly had to make this decision. Some of the employees decided to stay with the company only to get terminated just weeks later, the night before Thanksgiving. A bunch of employees who had said that they were committing to Elon's vision of being hardcore then got terminated a couple weeks later with no severance offered at all. So, there are just no good answers here.
COATES: Obviously, people remember that and must be using it to guide their own decisions here. A former senior employee at Twitter telling CNN what's happening now fits with how Musk operates, saying that Musk once told him directly, if you're not adding things back in afterwards, then you weren't cutting hard enough to start with. That's one thing for a private entity. Is it the right approach for a government, to cut into the bone?
LISS-RIORDAN: Yeah, yeah, no, absolutely. It is -- it's very scary. It's terrifying, what's happening, because not only are these employees being put in this very difficult, very difficult situation, I am worried about our federal government, which may be on the brink of losing so much experience and expertise. And it was one thing for Elon Musk to decide to buy Twitter for $44 billion and then destroy it. It's another thing for him to take a wrecking ball to the federal government, the U.S. government upon which billions of people across the globe rely on.
I really worry about what's going to happen for us. The employees who are calling and asking for advice, I'm telling people they have to make their own personal decisions here. But as a country, I really worry what we may be about to lose. I mean, there are plenty of employees who may think, hey, I want to get out of here. Eight months severance sounds pretty good to me. But, you know, the information that they're getting every day is changing. Originally, they were told, if you decide to resign now, you'll get eight months of severance and it was a little ambiguous.
COATES: Yeah.
LISS-RIORDAN: They said you may be asked to continue working. And so, the question was, well, what is it they were even being offered? Resign and you keep working. And then they clarified that another day or two later and they said, no, no, if you resign, you won't have to do any work after March 1st. So -- and you can go get another job. But then a lot of employees are scratching their heads saying, well, how can I go get another job?
Federal employees have long been told -- were not allowed to get other employment while being on the federal payroll. We're talking to lawyers who work for the government who are saying, aren't there ethical concerns about us working somewhere else? And one employee said that she was told, no, she won't have to work anymore. And then after she resigned, she was told, you need to keep working through May.
[23:10:00]
So, people are getting such conflicting information.
COATES: In other words, clear is mud but that might very well be the point. Shannon Liss-Riordan, thank you so much.
LISS-RIORDAN: Thank you for having me.
COATES: Let's continue our conversation with CNN political commentator Shermichael Singleton and former senior advisor to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns, Chuck Rocha. I mean let me first begin with this. The idea of the uncertainty here, why would anyone take him up on that offer?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I would think if your onus of your mission is to restructure government in such a way that it's leaner, you usually want to reduce overhead pretty immediately. So, if you're Elon Musk, you're coming from the business sector, that's usually the first thing a business would do. You start reducing overhead. It's a good sign to your investors. It's usually an idea that you're trying to control cost overall. He's attempting to take that mindset to the government. Obviously, it's far more complicated. But I think the premise of the aims aren't necessarily bad.
However, I do think you've got to streamline this process, Laura. If people are expecting to take this eight month, you know, peer severance package, then that needs to be pretty clear. You can't say we'll take it, but then you can also work for two or three months. They got to figure that out. But I think the premise is pretty -- is pretty good.
COATES: But, you know, the streamlining is one thing. They're going at lightning speed right now with a lot of the changes they're making. I know they say the mandate is one thing. But CNN is reporting that DOGE now has access to Medicare, to Medicaid payment systems. This is lightning speed. Do either of you have concerns about the pacing of it? Because it could actually end up backfiring on Republicans and Democrats.
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: If somebody stops getting a check on time, that's relying on that, or somebody's health- saving care gets disrupted in some way, even a little bit, it's going to be a political football none of them can handle. Going back to everybody getting fired, the big difference between Twitter and these federal employees is they have a collective bargaining agreement. In the last 48 hours, over 6,000 workers at the federal government have joined the AFGE Local. That's 11,000, the total of last year, because they're scared and they're worried and they're not sure.
Collective bargaining is just one insurance that they would have of repercussions. You're a lawyer, you know how that works. It gives you a grievance process that you have to go through, which is part of an organization when you're a part of that. And so that's something that's different than the Twitter thing. And the last piece of that is, and I hate to get into the weeds on this, but it's governed by the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board. And this week, Donald Trump got rid of the fifth member of that, fired them. He has the right to do that. But now they can't make quorum and file or take what do you call disciplinary actions on that board because they can't have a quorum. So, I think all of this is connected.
COATES: So, it sounds like really flooding the zone in terms of all things that are happening. As a Republican, do you have issues with the fact that the pace might be more than even Republicans can look at?
SINGLETON: I'm not necessarily opposed to moving quick if it's orderly. So, move quick but in an ordered process. Again, if the promise to the American people is that we've got to save more money, we're looking at inefficiencies, duplications within federal agencies. We're going to figure out how we can reduce size of intergovernmental departments and maybe merge them into others. That's going to save hundreds of millions, billions here. Then collectively, you look at a couple of hundred billion saved over time. That makes sense from a structured perspective. I think Mr. Musk and the folks at DOGE have to figure out a way to get there to articulate that to the American people.
COATES: Right now, what's being articulated, if you look at these live photos that are happening right now, the Senate Democrats, they are staging an all-night marathon. This is Senator Adam Schiff, obviously, from California. There's an all-night marathon of speeches in protest of Russell Vought's nomination to lead the Office of Management and Budget. Chuck, why him and not the others?
ROCHA: I think they -- like you said, everything is coming so quick. This was the most important one coming up right now so they could do something right now. Democrats have been under a lot of fire, like, you're not doing anything, you're not standing up, you're cowering in the corner.
COATES: Is that fair criticism?
ROCHA: It is, because everybody was flatfooted because they're, like, what is this crazy man doing? How is he doing it so fast? So now they're standing up and going, okay, we got to do something, we got to do something now, who's the next big name up? Let's stand together and show that we're not going to take this. I think that's what you're seeing.
SINGLETON: Laura, Democrats are right to critic and criticize Musk and Trump. But why not offer what their contingency or alternative would be to reduce the ridiculous amounts of money we're spending at the federal level? Every single American, every month, has to balance their checkbook. They got to figure out how much money I have to pay --
COATES: Do you have a checkbook still, Shermichael?
SINGLETON: No, I don't.
(LAUGHTER)
No, I don't. I don't think I've ever even written a checkbook. The point is --
(LAUGHTER)
-- the point is, Laura, people have to balance how much money they're spending on a monthly basis.
ROCHA: Let me interrupt Shermichael.
SINGLETON: Shouldn't the federal government have to do the same?
ROCHA: I say that the most brilliant thing that the Republicans are doing here is making Democrats like me come on and defend USAID that most folks don't even know. SINGLETON: Which is terrible.
ROCHA: That's just 1% of the -- of the whole thing, right? We're supposed to be talking about gas and groceries and how we're a different vision than Donald Trump. And I have to sit here and defend the IRS? That's a bad position for a Democrat to regular folks.
COATES: Sounds like that's exactly the thing I want you to be.
SINGLETON: I like you guys reading on that, Chuck.
COATES: We'll leave Shermichael to go balance his checkbook.
(LAUGHTER)
Shermichael, Chuck Rocha, thank you both so much.
[23:14:57]
Remember when Pam Bondi said we should investigate the investigators? Well, now, she's the attorney general and she's making good on that promise, ordering a new directive that's rattling not just the FBI, but even the state level and federal prosecutors. And later, did the mission to shrink the government just turn into a counterintelligence disaster? Why the CIA is now on edge and worried that agents may have been compromised.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: All right, tonight, there's a new attorney general in town, and her name is Pam Bondi. She now runs one of the most important departments to President Trump. For weeks, people have wondered, what would she do when she showed up at the DOJ? The one who vowed to go after investigators?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE, FORMER FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Department of Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted. The bad ones. The investigators will be investigated because the deep state, last term for President Trump, they were hiding in the shadows. But now they have a spotlight on them and they can all be investigated, and the House needs to be cleaned out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:20:02]
COATES: So, would that Pam Bondi show up or this one, the one who vowed to end politicization?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: If confirmed. I will fight every day to restore confidence and integrity to the Department of Justice and each of its components. The partisanship, the weaponization will be gone. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, the wait is over. Tonight, we may just have our answer. Because in a memo, Bondi says she'll establish a -- quote -- "weaponization working group." Its aim? To review criminal cases brought against Trump by, you guessed it, former Special Counsel Jack Smith, but also Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg, and the civil lawsuit brought by the New York A.G., Letitia James.
With me now, Brendan Ballou is a former federal prosecutor who resigned in protest over Trump's decision to pardon most January 6th defendants. Brendan, thank you for joining. When you hear that A.G. Bondi is creating a weaponization working group, what do you think is the intent?
BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER DOJ PROSECUTOR WHO WORKED ON JANUARY 6 CASES: I think it's an intent to rewrite history. The basic problem that the new attorney general has is that her boss, the president, committed a bunch of crimes, and so did a lot of rioters who were acting in his name. For his legitimacy and for hers, they need to rewrite the history of January 6, and that's what I think this working group is meant to do.
COATES: You know, one of the prosecutors who was fired for working on January 6 cases questioned Bondi's decision to even review the cases. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAKE STRUEBING, FIRED FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: And I do think it's a bit of a double-edged sword for this administration to keep attacking January 6th because, well, quite frankly, it may not end well for them because of the strength of the evidence and the strength of these cases. And as I used to tell D.C. juries, you don't have to take my word for it. You can look at the video because this is the single most reported crime in the history of this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Could this probe actually backfire?
BALLOU: Potentially. You know, the way that the memo was written seems that they are anticipating bringing criminal charges against investigators at the FBI, against prosecutors, potentially even against judges. I think it's questionable how much an appetite the American public has for those sorts of political prosecutions, given that, as you just heard, the evidence about what happened on January 6 is incredibly powerful and it is overwhelming.
COATES: You know, January 6 cases, as you well know, they are a small fraction of the overall bureau's work. I mean, you've got immigration, you've got drug offenses, you've got violent crime. Those all account for far more than the 1,500 or so cases from January 6, even in spite of the severity and gravitas attached to it. What happens to all that work that really is apolitical completely in nature if agents are suddenly fired en masse? BALLOU: Yeah. I'm so glad you asked that because, you know, this administration has been eager to talk about this weaponization order. They've been less eager to talk about a lot of the other things that they've been doing in the last few days. The fact that they pushed out the career acting head of the Antitrust Division. The fact that they are apparently trying to push out the career acting head of the Tax Division. The fact that they have disbanded the Klepto task force in the National Security Division. These are moves that are going to have one effect, and that effect is that it's going to help a lot of rich people get even richer through committing crimes.
COATES: You were actually a prosecutor when Trump tried to ban people arriving from majority Muslim countries. And you called the public protests at that time enormously helpful. How so?
BALLOU: I think people outside of government don't understand how powerful outside voices and protests can be. They can empower people at the bottom or in the middle of a bureaucracy to understand the stakes of a decision, to understand the legality or illegality of a decision, and to push back against policies that are discriminatory, corrupt or illegal. And so, I hope that in the coming months, people don't underestimate their own power here.
COATES: Brendan Ballou, thank you so much for joining us.
BALLOU: Thank you.
COATES: I want to talk more about this issue with CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams and staff writer for "The Atlantic" and longtime national security journalist Shane Harris. Elliot, the wait is, in fact, over. We now know what the first move was going to be in this overall chess game. Investigate the investigators. What's the risk?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: There's a profound risk. And look, if prosecutors or anyone in government has broken the law or if there is a serious allegation that somebody has broken the law, then, of course, they ought to be investigated and prosecuted for it.
[23:24:58]
But this notion that merely having worked in government or merely having served across administrations is itself evidence or indicative of disloyalty to the president or a crime is just nonsense. Having served in both Democratic and Republican administrations and, quite frankly, Laura, like, I was a Democratic political appointee at ICE with an incredibly conservative workforce there. Yet, somehow, the work still managed to get done because people manage to sort of work with folks that they don't agree with. This idea that somehow the government is tainted by people who are there to undo it is simply false.
COATES: And, of course, I mean, there's always the risk. When you try to go through someone else's trash, they might find your own dirt. And if you are Trump and others, there's a risk for that as well, although it's unlikely the DOJ would pursue him in any way in this junction. But what do the agents believe life might be like under A.G. Bondi?
SHANE HARRIS, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Well, I think that the FBI right now is having this enormous scrutiny placed on them simply because they worked on cases that were assigned to them. And to your point, FBI agents work regardless of who the administration is. They do not pick their cases. They're assigned to go investigate possible violations of the law, which is what they did. I think they're looking at the acting leadership of the FBI right now and Attorney General Bondi.
And the message to them is anybody who might touch the president's sphere of influence or his interests, maybe you need to think twice about whether you're going to be working on that case. It's a profound chilling effect. It does not work this way. This is not how apolitical law enforcement works in the United States. And I am confident that those agents right now understand that and are shocked the way we are.
WILLIAMS: It's also important to note that we're not just talking about searches at Donald Trump's house that personally affected him at Mar-a-Lago. We are talking about investigations of January 6th that in many regards have very little to do with Donald Trump, the defendant himself. What you have is documentary evidence, video evidence, testimony, live eyewitnesses and compelling evidence that went to grand juries and were blessed by judges that led to people getting convicted. This idea that somehow now we need to reach in the January 6th cases to protect the president of the United States is also nonsense. These are righteous cases that no one seems to have credible evidence were brought with some tremendous bias against the current president.
COATES: Call me crazy but I don't want to person investigating crime look over the shoulder towards the White House. I want them looking down at the evidence itself. But maybe I'm crazy here. But the CIA did send the White House an unclassified email listing of all employees hired by the agency over just the last two years to comply with the executive order that was issued. It included their first name, it included the last initial which, of course, raises some fears that not everyone is going to be Joe Smith and have a non-identifiable name. Does this put a risk on their lives?
HARRIS: It certainly puts a risk on their cover status if they're working undercover and their ability to work in the intelligence community or overseas. These are people who've worked for two years or less. And importantly, that means they don't have the same civil service protections as other officers who've served longer. Why might the White House want their names? You might suspect it might be because it'd be easier to fire them one day.
So, the CIA did send those names over and because this was an unclassified setting and, by the way, these names are going over to the Office of Personnel Management, which is currently run by Elon Musk and his friends. They are not going to identify in an unclassified email the full names of people who might be working undercover. So, the compromise the agency tried to reach was we'll give you their first name and their last initial. This really just underscores how risky this whole transmission was. If the OPM and Elon Musk really felt they needed these names, there are ways to get those names in a classified setting. That's not what happened here.
COATES: How do our allies who have a working relationship with our CIA, how must they be feeling?
HARRIS: I talked to a lot of them, and they are deeply troubled. They have been so, frankly, since the election because they feared that this kind of outright politicization of apolitical intelligence and law enforcement was coming. They see it happening now. And they are very nervous. They're worried about the FBI and the CIA being distracted and not being good partners with them because they need information that we collect for their security. They're worried about what happens to the intelligence they share with us. Can we keep it secret? Will we abuse it? Will we be looking for names of people who are working for them?
This is a really critical situation right now, and allies are looking at the United States who they've worked with, in some cases had partnerships with these agencies for decades, and are wondering whether these values are really still in play anymore.
COATES: It's obviously our own vulnerability with a level of attrition.
WILLIAMS: That, too. And, you know, when you start targeting people for what you believe, when the government starts targeting people for what is believed to be their political or personal views, you start raising serious free speech and First Amendment questions. These are government employees, and the government is targeting them for what it believes their views to be. That is a serious breach of, frankly, centuries of precedent in the United States that people are allowed to hold the views they have.
[23:30:03]
And we're not even talking about the views they have. It's just the views that the government thinks they have. So, there's a whole host of things here. There are legal issues. There are lawsuits that these folks can bring. And it's just simply wrong as a moral matter in our government and is going to make us less safe as a country, Laura.
COATES: Profoundly stated. Both of you, thank you so much. Elliot Williams, Shane Harris, thank you both. Look, if you were surprised by President Trump's proposal to take control of Gaza, turns out you weren't alone. Far from it, by the way. So how off guard was everyone at the White House, really? It is a proposal, even actually still a proposal? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Clean up on aisle six, please. White House officials walking back President Trump's remarks about the United States taking over Gaza. Here's Trump Secretary of State Marco Rubio today versus Trump yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: The only thing President Trump has done very generously, in my view, is offer the United States willingness to step in, clear the debris, clean the place up from all the destruction that's on the ground, clean it up of all these unexploded munitions. Seriously, it was not meant as a hostile move, it was meant as a, I think, a very generous move.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Given what you've said about Gaza, would the U.S. send troops to help secure the security vacuum?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We'll do what is necessary. If it's necessary, we'll do that. We're going to take over that piece. We're going to develop it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And there's more. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt today versus Trump yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: The president has made it clear that they need to be temporarily relocated out of Gaza for the rebuilding of this effort.
TRUMP: I do see a long-term ownership position, and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East and maybe the entire Middle East. And everybody I've spoken to, this was not a decision made lightly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: As for the reporter trying to get some clarification from Leavitt, that was Reuters White House correspondent Jeff Mason, who joins me now. So glad to have Reuters -- sorry, to have you here, Jeff. Thank you. Is Trump's administration on the same page as him when it comes to his plans on Gaza?
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Well, it sounds like his plans on Gaza were written by hand, by him, on his notecards last night when he was meeting there and holding this press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I was told by a White House official that he briefed his team ahead of time, so it wasn't a complete surprise to the people around him. But the fact that they're doing some cleanup, as you say, today, is reflection of the fact that this hasn't been a policy that they've been working on in this situation room for weeks and weeks. He has only been in office, of course, for two and a half weeks.
That said, he has laid the groundwork for it a little bit. Well, he started speaking, I think, about 10 days ago on Air Force One when he was taking questions from the pool about the need for Palestinians to relocate. So that germ of the idea, not the piece of the U.S. taking over Gaza, but Palestinians going somewhere else, he started talking about almost two weeks ago. And then it came to this yesterday when he said Gaza should be owned and operated essentially by this country.
COATES: You know, on that point of, this is not a statement to be taken lightly when an American president makes a statement about relocating people and then owning a particular area. You actually had another question for the White House press secretary about who actually owns Gaza. I'll remind you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MASON: Yesterday, he spoke about the U.S. owning Gaza. Who owns Gaza now and how would the U.S. acquire ownership?
LEAVITT: Well, Gaza is currently run by Iranian-backed terrorists in the Middle East, Hamas, who we all agree, I think everybody in the region agrees, that can no longer stand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That was really an answer to the who would actually own it and how you would acquire the ownership of it, of course. And is that part of the problem with this? What theoretical proposal at this point then?
MASON: Well, that was the reason I wanted to ask. I mean, the president used the language of ownership.
COATES: Yeah.
MASON: He didn't use the language of saying we want an international body to come in, we want to administer this through the United Nations. He didn't give any sense of what authority he had or legal right he had. And so, I was looking for that in an answer and it didn't come. But I think that is something that we'll keep pressing on if this idea continues to germinate. I would say, you know, at the beginning of this segment, you said walk away -- excuse me, walk back. They did walk back a little bit, but they didn't walk away. Both Secretary Rubio and Karoline Leavitt were still underscoring the fact that this was something that Trump wants to do.
COATES: Well, I see your 10-day mention ago on Air Force One, and I raised you about a year ago with what son-in-law Jared Kushner had to say, proposing a similar idea about a year ago. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JARED KUSHNER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: Gaza's waterfront property, it could be very valuable if people would focus on kind of building up, you know, livelihoods. If you think about all the money that's gone into this tunnel network and into all the munitions, if that would have gone into education or innovation, what could have been done? And so, I think that it's a little bit of an unfortunate situation there. But I think from Israel's perspective, I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Coincidence?
[23:39:58]
MASON: You know, Jared Kushner, like his father-in-law, is a developer. They look at the world in this way, real estate. I don't know if it's a coincidence he's not in government now. He was in government during the first term, but he's not now. But either way, whether it's something that got germinated in President Trump's head because he spoke to his son-in-law or heard that or because it was just something that he, as a former or still kind of current real estate developer himself, just saw this nice piece of land and thought, let's make this proposal. It's hard to say. And it really doesn't matter.
At the end of the day, that doesn't answer the questions about the legality. It also doesn't fix the contradictions that have come out over the last 24 hours. I mean, he says the U.S. will own it, and yet Karoline Leavitt today said he's not going to spend any money on it. He says that the U.S. will take over. And yet she said today he has not committed to sending any troops there. So, there's zero clarity about how this would work, even if it were legal.
COATES: Those questions are shocking, considering he said it next to the Israeli prime minister who seemed to revel in the idea as if it had been said for the first time to him.
MASON: Yeah, didn't object to it.
COATES: He did not. Jeff Mason, thank you so much. Up next, President Trump signs an executive order called Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports. His allies, they are thrilled. His critics, they're pouncing. But how does your view on the transgender debate stack up with the rest of the American public? CNN's Harry Enten is standing by with some revealing numbers for us next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: With this executive order, the war on women's sports is over.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: President Trump signing an executive order called Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports. It's designed to stop trans women from playing women's sports.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: With my action this afternoon, we're putting every school receiving taxpayer dollars on notice that if you let men take over women's sports, teams or invade your locker rooms, you will be investigated for violations of Title IX and risk your federal funding. There will be no federal funding.
(APPLAUSE)
COATES: Now, he's centering this on Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities. A 180 from the Biden administration. Biden's White House said schools are in violation if they bar trans students from participating on sports teams. The Trump White House, they say, allowing trans women to play on women's teams, that takes away opportunities from biological women. So, what does science say? Well, the research is limited.
But an October 2023 study found that gender-affirming hormone therapy -- quote -- "reduced, if not erased, any physical attributes that could give an advantage to a trans woman." So, what's public opinion say about the matter? Joining me now, CNN's senior political data reporter Harry Enten. Harry, tell me, what are you seeing in these numbers?
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Yeah, I think these numbers are really illuminating on this topic because I just think there's such a clear trend among the American public. So transgender female athletes in women's sports, only 18% of the country says that they should be, in fact, allowed to participate in women's sports. Compare this to the opposition. I mean, my goodness gracious, 79%. You rarely get 79% of the country to agree on anything, but they do, in fact, agree on the idea of opposing transgender female athletes in women's sports.
But it's not just the here and now, Laura. It's not just the here and now. What we're actually seeing is a trend on this particular issue, and it's going in the direction of opposition. So, take a look here. Okay, transgendered female athletes, and amongst those Americans who oppose them in women's sports, back in 2021, it was 62%. A majority, but, you know, not anywhere close to a ginormous majority, right? A clear majority, but not a ginormous majority. But then again, you look here in 2025, you see it at 79%. So, it's not just that the majority of Americans are opposed to transgender female athletes in women's sports, it's that the opposition has become considerably larger in just the last four years.
COATES: How does this break down across party lines?
ENTEN: Yeah. So, you know, when you get 79% of Americans to agree on anything, in this case opposition to transgender female athletes in women's sports, you got to believe that it's the majority across all parties, and that's, in fact, what we see. So transgender female athletes, again, opposing them in women's sports, you get 67% of Democrats, so two-thirds there. You get 64% of independents, you get about two-thirds there. And then look at this, near uniformity among Republicans, 94% of Republicans in opposition. You rarely get 67% of Democrats and 94% of Republicans to agree on anything, but they do on this particular issue. But it is not just that Republicans are in opposition. It's the strength of that opposition. Okay, Republicans who strongly want to ban transgender female athletes from women's sports, get this, it's 84% who strongly want to ban them, and that is actually larger than the amount of Republicans who strongly want to deport all immigrants in America who are here illegally. So that just gives you an understanding of how strong the opposition is among Republicans. It is really strong when it comes to banning transgender female athletes from women's sports, Laura.
COATES: It's very illuminating. Harry Enten, thank you so much.
ENTEN: Thank you.
COATES: Ahead, it was the Kamala Harris interview that sparked a $10 billion lawsuit from Trump.
[23:50:02]
Now, the FCC is releasing the transcripts from CBS that refute his election interference narrative. Brian Stelter is here to take us through it all, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Conspiracy theory now out in the open. CBS News releasing the full transcript and video of their "60 Minutes" interview with then presidential candidate Kamala Harris. It's the interview that launched an investigation by the FCC and a $10 billion lawsuit against the network by Donald Trump after he led the network -- quote -- "doctored the interview to make Harris look better and help her win the presidential election."
[23:55:04]
Now, here is the exchange between Harris and "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker as it aired on the show.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL WHITAKER, CBS CORRESPONDENT: It seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening
KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And here is Harris's answer without the edits as released today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: CBS also releasing a statement today saying, as the full transcript shows, we edited the interview to ensure that as much of the vice president's answer to "60 Minutes" many questions were included in our original broadcast while fairly representing those answers.
Here to discuss is CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter. Brian, good to see you. Does the transcript prove CBS's point? And why didn't they just release the raw footage to begin with?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: Yeah, number one, yes, I believe it does. It shows debatable but normal editing practices. It does not prove any deliberate distortion. Donald Trump, on the campaign trail last fall, said that CBS committed election interference. He said they threw out one answer, they replaced it with another. This proves the opposite. It shows that CBS showed two different parts of the clip. But CBS did not distort what Harris said. And it didn't seem that bad what she said, frankly. She was asked a tough question. She didn't have a great answer. CBS did air it. This should be a non-story.
And so often, Laura, we end up in Trump's unreality, where he takes something small, he makes it very big, he makes it into a big scandal, he claims it's the end of the world. There are months of ramifications as a result. That's exactly what's happened here. His choice of FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, has decided to make this a big deal. He knows Trump is suing over this. And so, it has become a big scandal. And what are we talking about? We're talking about one clip from a CBS "60 Minutes" interview. This has been driving CBS crazy. But it's because CBS was not transparent that they ended up in this position. It's exactly what you just said. If they had released all of this raw material back in October, we wouldn't be here in February.
COATES: Is that a dangerous precedent to set, though? I mean, obviously, many viewers might not be aware. The journalists often --
STELTER: There's a lot of concern about that. Yes, they are saying that Brendan Carr is weaponizing the FCC, including some of his colleagues at the FCC. The Democratic Commissioner, Anna Gomez, released a statement today saying this should be dismissed, this should be put to bed. But instead of saying case closed today, the FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, who is Trump's appointee, he is saying he's going to open this up to public comment. He's going to let this go on for at least another six weeks. In other words, he's going to prolong the pain for PBS, sorry, for CBS by keeping this an ongoing issue. And this is not just a matter of CBS. Brendan Carr is probing PBS. He's looking into NPR. He's investigating a radio station in California. He sent a letter to Disney right before Christmas. He is trying to advance Trump's anti-media agenda on a number of different fronts. COATES: As I mentioned, viewers might not know that outlets both on television and in print, they oftentimes edit down interviews for clarity or length. Is transparency though the lesson here? Obviously, no one endeavors to nor should distort a statement to benefit anyone. It should be simply the reliance of information, even if it is edited down for the length of it. Is the new game in town essentially going to be that transparency, having that raw footage, has this changed fundamentally how outlets might deal?
STELTER: Well, I think number one, CBS should have been transparent from the get-go. But even transparency is not always the answer because transparency can also be used against news outlets to create the idea of a problem when there actually isn't one. Look what's happening right now with this government spending database. People are cherry picking data, misinterpreting what's out there in the public domain, pretending that there's scandals when there are not.
COATES: Brian Stelter, really important to keep following the story. Thank you so much for doing so. I think it is going to have major repercussions, as you can imagine.
STELTER: Yeah.
COATES: Hey, I want to thank all of you as well for watching this evening. "Anderson Cooper 360," that's next.
