Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Says Putin Call is Start of Ukraine Peace Talks; Trump Notches Legal Win Over "Buyout" Plan; Democrats Target Elon Musk in First DOGE Hearing; "Laura Coates Live" Presents "America Asks"; Laura Coates Interviews David Fahrenthold. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired February 12, 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]
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Do you accept?
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, let's do it.
JENNINGS: Abby --
PHILLIP: Let's do it.
JENNINGS: Abby and friends on the middle of the sphere.
UNKNOWN: You've got all these rich friends now.
JENNINGS: The Colosseum (ph).
UNKNOWN: That's a positive (ph).
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: Everybody has got to keep their hands to themselves. This is verbal ThunderDome (ph).
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.
PHILLIP: Nothing more. Everyone, thank you very much. And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, President Trump talks with Vladimir Putin and promises to end Europe's biggest conflict since World War II. But will Ukraine have a say in how it all ends?
Plus, a federal judge hands Trump a win over his buyout plan, a win at least for now. Look at where the fight goes next.
And a DOGE hearing becomes a sounding board for complaints about Elon Musk as Democrats dig for a winning strategy of some kind. Former Democratic Congressman Dean Phillips is my guest tonight on "Laura Coates Live." So, if the last three weeks have brought vibe shift upon vibe shift, well, day 24 of this second term is no exception. Tonight, he took questions from one of his favorite spots, the Oval Office, and tickled to the world. He's bringing Vladimir Putin out of the wilderness. How? By teasing a meeting with the Russian president to end the war in Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We ultimately expect to meet. In fact, we expect that he'll come here, I'll go there, and we're going to meet also probably in Saudi Arabia the first time. We'll meet in Saudi Arabia, see if we can get something done. But we want to end that war. That war is a disaster. It's a really bloody, horrible war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, Trump says the Saudi Arabia meeting will happen in the not too distant future. That's a quote. Now, for those keeping score, the ships already sailed on its promise to end the war within his 24 hours in office. But Trump did talk to Putin on the phone today for about an hour and a half. He says they agreed to work together very closely. That's a huge change in the past three years, frankly. Putin has been essentially blacklisted by the West over his invasion, where President Biden gave him the ultimate cold shoulder.
Trump also spoke with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy for an hour. That was after his call with Putin which, of course, begs the question, is it Zelenskyy who is now on the sidelines? The man who visited Washington, D.C., what, five times since Russia's invasion? The man who has addressed Congress twice, including once in person. The man who has had countless western leaders stand by him in Kyiv. Well, Trump was asked about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you view Ukraine as an equal member of this peace process?
TRUMP: Um, it's an interesting question. Uh, I think they have to make peace. Their people are being killed, and I think they have to make peace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Interesting response to an interesting question. Trump was also asked if Ukraine would get back the land it lost to Russia since 2014.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It certainly would seem to be unlikely. They took a lot of land. They fought for that land. And they lost a lot of -- they lost a lot of soldiers. Some of it will come back. I think some of it will come back. Yeah, some of that land will come back. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Just to give you a visual of what Ukraine looks like right now, take a look. You see all that red? That's what Russia has taken. Trump didn't say what parts of Ukraine they could get back. His defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, also telling America's allies that Ukraine won't go back to what it was. And he went a step further by taking NATO membership right off the table.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders, is an unrealistic objective. The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Unrealistic? Realistic? We'll see what happens. But Trump today described this war in very real terms. He says it's -- it's vicious, that what he has seen is horrible. And he's right. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed or wounded. Families have been torn apart. Cities destroyed. Many people, including Ukrainians, they want an end to the fighting. But how should that peace be achieved? What happens next, and what role should the United States even play?
Here to debate those questions and more, Josh Rogin, lead global security analyst for "The Washington Post," and Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies for the Cato Institute.
[23:05:01]
Glad to have both of you here. I'm thinking about the series of interesting questions that Trump had been asked. I'll begin with you, Justin, on this. When it comes to negotiations, what is the role the United States should even have?
JUSTIN LOGAN, DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE AND FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE: So, I think the what the president tried to lay out was that the U.S. will stand up for the U.S. interest in Ukraine and Ukraine will stand up for Ukraine's interest in Ukraine. Those overlap, but they're not the same thing. Right?
The Zelenskyy government has an unlimited appetite for getting territory back, etcetera. But with the United States having allocated over $170 billion already to Ukraine's aid and with -- quite frankly, let's just put this on the table. Ukraine is losing the war today. It's in a war of attrition with a much larger neighbor. The president of the United States has to stand up for the U.S. interest, which is not identical to the Ukrainian interest.
COATES: What's your response?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, I think in one sense, it's good because we have a new president, we have a new administration, they've got a new foreign policy, and they're telling us what it is. It's different than the Biden administration's foreign policy. It's a lot of what Justin just described very accurately. They care more about U.S. interest than Ukraine interest. Okay, well, at least that's honest. They're -- they're saying what they really believe.
The problem is that that creates a series of events that's now going to unfold, that could have drastic and negative consequences for both Ukraine and the U.S., not to mention Europe. And what I mean by that is that the way that they're setting up this negotiation by dealing with Putin first --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ROGIN: -- and Zelenskyy, second, and trying to negotiate away Ukrainian territory and Ukrainian aspirations without talking to the Ukrainians, in my view, is destined to fail. And that's a big problem because, you know, even though Trump really wants a deal, he thinks this is going to be a great deal and that everything is going to go fine, it's pretty obvious that the way that he's setting it up, it's going to be a deal that neither Putin is going to support and the Ukrainians are not going to support.
So, when you get to the end of that process that Trump just started, oh, we're going to give away all the concessions first, then we're going to negotiate, then we're going to see what other concessions Putin wants --
COATES: Hmm.
ROGIN: -- and then we're going to see what the Ukrainians want, well, that's very a low chance of actually succeeding. So, we'll be back where we started, but having given away all these concessions. That's the risk.
COATES: Well, it sounds like --
ROGIN: Doing it this way, which is sort of the bass-ackward way of negotiating where you give the concessions first, then you start the negotiations, and then you try to convince the Ukrainians to give up their territory, which they're not going to do. So, it's a -- it's kind of a mess, actually.
COATES: Well, then it speaks the idea of who has the most leverage here in this scenario. Right? We're talking about what they're giving away. I mean, you've got no NATO. You've got no pre-2014 borders, no U.S. troops. Their statement seems to suggest that, especially the absence of an answer to whether they have equal footing essentially in negotiation process. Does it give indication that Trump has shown his leanings towards who he's going to be supporting and trying to persuade differently?
LOGAN: I think there's a sense in Washington that the only pressure that needs to be applied is against Russia. And I think that's basically wrong. Right? Trump, I don't think made any or Secretary Hegseth made any concessions to Russia today. They made concessions to reality.
COATES: Hmm.
LOGAN: And those are as follows. Ukraine is losing the war at present. It's in a war of attrition against a much larger, wealthier, more populous, and better armed neighbor. That's a bad situation to be in entirely. And I think that they need to signal to Zelenskyy that the American appetite for this war is not unlimited.
The Biden administration did a sort of two step where they said, as much as it takes, as long as it takes. And then Zelenskyy understandably would say, well, hey, fellas, we'd love to have a no- fly zone. And the Biden administration said, no way are we going to do a no-fly zone. That would mean war with Russia. So, you have the Biden administration said we're not going to fight Russia over Ukraine. President Trump has said we're not going to fight Russia over Ukraine.
So why would you make a commitment on paper via a NATO membership to fight Russia over Ukraine when you've made clear that you have no intention of doing it? It's just -- it's -- it's -- it's madness to even suggest it to me.
COATES: Josh?
ROGIN: Well, there's definitely a contradiction in the Biden administration's policy of, you know, we're going to do everything to support Ukraine, but we're not going to do everything to support Ukraine. But Biden administration doesn't -- doesn't exist anymore. So, we just have to deal with situation the way it is.
And what Justin's analysis and I think the Trump administration analysis fails to acknowledge is a basic truth, which is that Ukrainian territory is not Trump's to give away. It's not ours to give away. We can't negotiate away 20% of Ukraine. It doesn't belong to us. It belongs to Ukrainian people.
And when you have a negotiation about Ukraine that doesn't involve the aspirations of the Ukrainian people, doesn't understand what their commitment to not living under Putin's cruel rule is, to getting their territory back, to getting the 20,000 children that were stolen from them and shipped off to Russia back, to getting justice and accountability for the war crimes that had happened, and to get --
COATES: Hold on. Hold on. Is your suggestion that they have essentially sold that ability to have a seat at the table because of the United States support financially?
ROGIN: No. What I'm saying is that even if the United States stops supporting them financially, they're still going to want to be a free and independent country.
[23:10:02]
So, this whole idea that we can just control exactly what they're going to do and make a deal and shove it down their throats is not true. And we can see that in other places. You know, we have places like Syria where we supported the people, and then we pulled out the support. We thought, oh, well, you know, this was a U.S. regime change war and blah, blah, blah. But it's not actually true. It actually the Syrian people just didn't want to live on their knees.
And Ukrainian people don't want to live on their knees. They -- it ignores the historical context, 100 years of Ukrainians fighting for their independence and their sovereignty. And now, they've suffered war crimes and destruction and death and refugees and displacement.
And so, yeah, Trump can go in and say, okay, I made a deal with Putin. We give you 20% of the country -- of the territory and you get a ceasefire, and maybe we get some European. But Ukrainians are not going to just agree to that just because Trump said it. And we think that this is all about us. It's not about us. It's about the Ukrainians. They've got a country. They like their country. They don't want their country to be ruled by Putin or his cronies. And they're not going to stand for it, especially after all they've lost.
COATES: So, do you think there -- that NATO should be an option for Ukraine?
LOGAN: Absolutely not, for the same reason that I just outlined. You have two presidents of the United States, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, saying we're not going to fight Russia over Ukraine. A NATO commitment --
ROGIN: Who is suggesting that?
LOGAN: Whoever suggested --
ROGIN: Anybody who suggests --
ROGIN: -- have to be in NATO.
LOGAN: No. What do you think Article 5 means, Josh?
ROGIN: No. The plan for Ukraine to join NATO was for Ukraine to join NATO in the current territory that it controls so that it wouldn't spark an Article 5. But even that is now --
LOGAN: That is not what NATO -- that is not what NATO --
ROGIN: That was the plan. But that's not the plan anymore because Trump is not supporting it. So, it doesn't really matter.
LOGAN: Let me -- let me -- let me reveal something here. Right? You have a bunch of European countries who have come out for what the Biden administration begged them to do, which was say that there was going to be an irreversible path for Ukraine to join NATO. This was a fantasy. You need 32 members of NATO to sign on to bring in a new member state. Do you think Turkey was going to do this? Do you think that Hungary was going to do this? Absolutely not.
And the fact of the matter is, I know for certain that some of these European countries that came out and said, oh, yes, we'd love to bring Ukraine into NATO, only did so because they knew that the United States and Germany were going to keep it hemmed in and not allow it to happen.
COATES: Why are you so certain about that?
LOGAN: Because I was in the meetings where they admitted that.
ROGIN: I think Justin is right. The NATO thing was probably a bridge too far. And to tell the Ukrainians that NATO was a bridge too far is not necessarily a bad thing because at least they understand that. But that's not really the question. The question is, are we going to support the Ukrainians in their fight against Russian aggression or are we going to hand them over to Putin and just say do what you will and we're out of there?
LOGAN: The U.S. interest is not --
ROGIN: And I think we should support them. And it doesn't have to be NATO. But -- and the Europeans should do more. And we should help the Ukrainians preserve their freedom and their sovereignty and their -- and their dignity. And if we don't do that, that's going to have horrible consequences not just for Ukrainians but for other people around the world who are threatened by psychopathic, mass murdering dictators who want to kill them. And the only thing standing in between them is countries like the United States being like, no, that's not okay.
COATES: Well, we're talking a lot about Ukraine and Zelenskyy. But I want to play what John Bolton had to say tonight about Putin. He says that he got exactly what he wanted to negotiate with Trump directly. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR OF THE UNITED STATES: Putin has scored a whole series of victories today. It's hard to encompass them all But I think, one, in addition to these substantive concessions, is that he has now, it seems, exactly what he wants.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Is that and was that Putin's strategy?
LOGAN: No. I think -- with all due respect to Ambassador Bolton, his legacy is one of wars all over the world. So, John Bolton, the defender of the peace, is sort of a bridge too far for anybody who has been paying attention.
But as I said at the outset, nothing was conceded today. Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO. Ukraine is losing the conflict on the battlefield. And saying that out loud is not conceding anything. Putin knows. Right? It's not -- it's saying that we realize something is true, that he knows to be true, concedes absolutely nothing.
So, there's -- I find this sort of whole garment rending, reaching for the fainting couch thing that people are doing to be bizarre. These are just facts that are apparent on the battlefield. ROGIN: Here's the thing that was conceded today, if you're wondering. The thing that was conceded is that we have a system in this world where the U.N. determines what the borders are, and then countries that can attack those borders are not supposed to do that because the U.N. has determined these are the borders.
LOGAN: What about the United States when it does that?
ROGIN: Okay, well, we can talk about that in another segment, but we're talking about Ukraine right now.
LOGAN: You're saying the U.N. has a system that determines who gets to go where and --
ROGIN: Where's the United States expanding? You know?
LOGAN: Well, it went into Iraq. It went into Afghanistan.
ROGIN: And we left both of them.
LOGAN: Yes, but --
ROGIN: Let's just talk about Ukraine for one second. Okay?
LOGAN: Sure, sure.
ROGIN: Because we can go through the litany of U.S. transgressions. But here, Russia is the aggressor. Ukraine is the victim. It would be wise to remember that, and then to understand that when we reward aggression, other aggressors are emboldened.
[23:15:01]
So, if we want to have a system where borders matter, then we should stand for borders matter. And when the secretary of defense says borders don't matter and we're going to have to give up part of Ukraine, whether Ukrainians like it or not, we're -- we're ceding that point. And we're ceding it at the beginning of the negotiations. So that's just to get to the negotiations. And then what happens at the end of negotiations? We're going to have to concede even more.
And if you think the Ukrainians are going to live on their knees just so Trump can get a quick deal to say that he made peace, when he actually didn't make peace, he just got a ceasefire that allowed Putin to regroup and then attack again later, you don't understand the Ukrainians.
You haven't talked to the Ukrainians. Because all you have to do is listen to them, and they'll say, listen, we fought and died for three years, and we're not going to surrender just so Trump can get a headline. And if Trump thinks that, then he's sorely mistaken. And if that means the United States is going to leave us to fight for our own, that's what we're going to do.
COATES: So, does that mean we're not getting Canada and Greenland?
(LAUGHTER)
Okay, I'll leave it there with a smile. Josh Rogin, Justin Logan, thank you both so much.
ROGIN: Thank you.
LOGAN: Thanks.
COATES: Ahead, President Trump gets a legal win and a green light for his federal buyout plan. But the fight may not be over. Plus, a congressional hearing on DOGE turns into an attack on, you guessed it, Elon Musk. Full of props, full of insults, and this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): If you are trying to conduct audits and figure out where the waste, fraud, and abuse is, I don't know why you would go to some tech guy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Are Democrats taking the right approach? Someone not afraid to criticize his own party and a former CEO himself has something to say about it. Dean Phillips joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch, where district court judges and liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So that was the White House press secretary this afternoon attacking the courts because they weren't going their way. Well, tonight, a different tune is being sung because guess what? They say they got a win. It's funny how that works.
A judge ruled that the so-called buyout plan for federal employees can proceed. Remember, this was the fork in the road offer to stop working and then get paid until, what, September? The judge said the union that brought the lawsuit does not have standing in the case since they're not directly impacted. Musk and team DOGE, they are declaring victory.
And in a moment, I'll talk with former congressman, Dean Phillips, who says and wants to know about what Musk has been up to so far. But first, I want to understand and unpack this ruling a little bit more for you all because the government is treating it as if it's final. They sent an email saying that any resignation received after 7:20 p.m. this evening will not be accepted.
However, as the union noted in its statement -- quote -- "It's not the end of that fight. Importantly, this decision did not address the underlying lawfulness of the program." And you know what? They're exactly right. The underlying merits and legal question were not addressed.
The judge simply said, you, as the unions, are not the ones who can bring this lawsuit. You don't have the proper standing to come before me because there's not a direct injury that's at play here, which means that the court is giving a kind of a hint about how you actually could achieve standing in front of a court to be able to sue.
It's still no doubt frustrating for Democrats on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, frankly, who have been trying to counteract these measures that Musk is employing and stop what he's doing. And today, they had a chance to try to make their point when they train their attention on Musk's work during the DOGE committee's first hearing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROCKETT: I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is that the Republicans believe our job is because right now, they have relinquished their constitutional duties over to an unelected bureaucrat.
REP. GREG CASAR (D-TX): If this committee were serious about rooting out waste from our federal government, then today's whole hearing would be about how Musk and Donald Trump are firing the independent watchdogs who've done this work for decades.
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): In the last Congress, Chairwoman Greene literally showed a dick pic in our oversight congressional hearing. So, I thought I'd bring one as well. Now, this, of course, we know is president Elon Musk. He's also the world's richest man.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to bring in former Democratic congressman from Minnesota, Dean Phillips. Congressman, good to see you. You know, you're in a pretty unique position in that you talked to Musk when you were running for president, and you did an X spaces within which you talked about your support for this notion of zero-based budgeting, this idea that you can reduce spending to zero, and then you figure out what's necessary in the end. Given that viewpoint, what do you make of what Elon Musk is doing in the present?
DEAN PHILLIPS, FORMER MINNESOTA REPRESENTATIVE: Well, Laura, thanks for having me. I have to tell you, I watched this with some real mixed emotions because I'm a long-suffering Democrat that wished my party would pay more attention, A, to the issues that more Americans are finding important, but B, to management and to efficiency and to competency. And I have to tell you, Laura, I watched that hearing today. I intentionally watched it and tried to do it objectively just as an American paying attention to a committee hearing.
[23:24:58]
And I got to tell you, I was really embarrassed for my Democratic colleagues, Mr. Garcia and others, because the fact of the matter is this is not playing well around the country. People want the government to work better. They believe that Mr. Musk, one of the most extraordinary entrepreneurs in human history, who does not fail at just about anything, they want him to do this, most Americans. They wanted Trump. They elected him.
And I just would hope that my Democratic colleagues might change the strategy and perhaps actually work with Republicans to identify waste and fraud and actually attack that because then they would have some more credibility as it relates to the constitutional issues and the ones that are actually going to hurt human beings, including federal employees who are now being used as pawns. So -- but that is how most Americans feel. But Democrats are not projecting that, and I'm deeply concerned about leadership right now.
COATES: Well, they would notably argue that they're trying to have some oversight. They would like to know what the functions that he is doing are. They want more transparency. They don't like power being ceded to him with little, frankly, accountability or even that transparency. That doesn't give you pause?
PHILLIPS: Sure. That's what I said. I'm conflicted because the way this is being -- look, if I could wave my magic wand, I would also identify ways to reduce waste in the federal government. When I ran for president, Laura, that was one of my propositions, to engage one of the world's foremost consulting firms to literally look at the entire federal budget and make thoughtful recommendations to Congress about how we could actually become more efficient, more effective, and that was a proposition of mine.
Unfortunately, Democrats are only focused on one thing right now, Mr. Musk. The fact of the matter, he's quite popular. He has the largest platform in human history which is, of course, Twitter/X. And I think we're missing the boat as Democrats. And all I'm saying is that sometimes, it's better to join them and actually play a role in how the strategy works rather than so pathetically, frankly, try to combat something that clearly is a steamroller, and Democrats are being steamrolled. I'm deeply concerned about that.
Yes, Musk is not elected. He has no accountability other than Donald Trump. And that's a frightening combination. And I don't want to cross my fingers. I think Democrats should join the club and then have more credibility to actually raise the alarm about constitutional issues. Right now, it's the boy who cried wolf.
COATES: Well, fair point. And yet, they feel he may be more polarizing than popular and that they are being left out of that clubhouse. That seems to be a big part of the grievance as well. But let me play for you what Joe Rogan said about Democrats recently.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, POSCASTER: They're not course correcting at all. You know, they're saying stupid shit. The -- it's -- it's all nonsense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, the course correction that you think would be appropriate is what?
PHILLIPS: Well, the course correction, frankly, Laura, I wish had occurred a year and a half ago when I tried to raise the alarm about Joe Biden. These are the same Democrats. And many of them I'd love and I consider my friends. But they're the same people who tried to tell Americans that Joe Biden was just fine and he was going to win. And we knew better.
So, now, to try to establish credibility on issues that Americans actually voted for, which is to make government work more efficiently, is a big mistake. And at the end of the day, I think what Joe Rogan said, I think what Governor Moore said, is Democrats better start getting away from the microphones and, frankly, away from the cameras and into America, and start listening to people because the issues that Democrats are prioritizing right now are not the ones that most Americans, at least in my estimation, care deeply about.
And now, as a six-week retired member of Congress, I'm looking at this very differently. And I got to tell you, even in six weeks, Laura, I really do understand much more how Americans have been feeling for a long time. And I think the Washington bubble is a real distraction for both parties, but particularly Democrats right now who do not understand that most Americans are not getting what they're selling.
COATES: You and I are both Minnesotans. I can fully appreciate the overemphasis on what happens inside the Beltway. And yet, a lot of the executive orders that have come down from President Trump, they're not fully in line with the things that most Americans were ultimately concerned with, including the economy, the so-called kitchen table issues of reducing prices. I mean, you got everything from pennies to straws. Immigration is in there as well. Don't get me wrong.
But he's not honing in on those aspects as well. Is -- is Trump at risk of focusing on that, which is not the priority of the American people as well?
PHILLIPS: Yeah. It's what's interesting, Laura. I think about this just about every day, and I have for the better part of eight years now. You know, Donald Trump is an extraordinary anomaly as it relates to politicians. He transcends conventional wisdom. I do not think there's anything he can do to upset his base, if you will. And I think Democrats have to just start understanding that and start operating differently.
That's why I say, Laura, very sincerely, you know, I know Donald Trump a little bit, and I can tell you the man is a transactional executive. [23:30:02]
He's a transactional president. And if Democrats would identify a couple things on which they could work together, and this is one of them, by the way, government waste and efficiency, reducing the federal deficit, for example, why not say, you know what? We're on the same team here. This is a problem. Let's do it. Why not for immigration? Say, yes, this is a problem. Let's work together. At least demonstrate the willingness to actually solve the problems.
I'm -- I'm afraid there is nothing he can do. He's doing a lot wrong. He's doing a lot that could be damaging --
COATES: He is.
PHILLIPS: -- to our country in the future. But Democrats are barking up the wrong tree right now. And sadly, I don't see leadership in any capacity, with a clear strategy and a game changing strategy that the party is going to need if it hopes to be competitive both in the midterms and in the next election.
COATES: That has been the consistent drumbeat, absence of leadership, but so has the idea -- I mean, what you describe as, if you can't beat them, join them, philosophy, to a lot of voters, it might seem like bending the knee and giving in on areas that they refuse to do so for principled reasons.
But I do want to ask you this one last question, too, because, you know, Congressman Don Beyer said -- quote -- "We're still looking for that national spokesperson. And it could be that Hakeem becomes that national voice. It hasn't happened yet." So, why do you think that is the case? Is it a lack of a prominent messenger or is it the message itself?
PHILLIPS: Oh, I think it's a few things. First, let me just say this about Donald Trump. It's not just joining him and going along for the ride. It's saying these are a couple issues that we can work with you on and actually get some of these things over the finish line by working together. In return, maybe help us on a couple of things. I do believe that is still possible.
As it relates to leadership, I think Hakeem Jeffries is a rising star. I know him well. I consider him a friend. I think he should be more visible. But we made a terrible mistake.
When I say we, the Democratic Party, by elevating Joe Biden without any competition, without any platform or stage for next generation leaders, and the absence of that opportunity that we totally ceded to Republicans over the course of a year means that Americans did not get to see one compelling next generation candidate on the national stage, and now we have to wait four years.
That's where we went wrong, that's why Americans do not know who's in charge of the Democrats, and that's why Americans are wondering what does the party stand for. The next leader has to clarify a strategy that appeals to Americans where they're at. And the fact of the matter is what we're prioritizing, Laura -- I just have to be objective. I love my party. I love our values and principles. I believe in compassion and decency and equity and equality. But we are not pursuing it in a way that Americans are buying and the evidence is all we need in the last election. And that's the truth. And it's time to start elevating new candidates and allowing people to compete for the position of representing Democrats who have a message that's compelling.
COATES: You have --
PHILLIPS: It's not AOC.
COATES: You have been consistent on that.
PHILLIPS: It's not the squad.
COATES: You've been consistent in your messaging on that very notion. I remind people of the idea of, you know, millions of people chose not to vote for Trump as well. Who perhaps take issue with the idea of, well, there's a mandate at play. Perhaps it's a different one. But we'll see what leadership emerges in a way that voters find effective. Dean Phillips, thank you so much for joining.
PHILLIPS: Thank you, Laura. Any time.
COATES: Well, it has been a dizzying few weeks since Trump took office again from daily lawsuits to consistent and constant executive orders. The flood of news is not stopping. Listen, me and my panel take questions from you and try to make sense of it all next.
And later, you know that limestone mine that Elon Musk talked about? The one that processes retirement paperwork? Well, I have the one reporter who has actually been there tell us what's real about it and what's not.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, it's day 24 of the second Trump administration. It feels like 24 years have gone by. Perhaps you're not alone in thinking that because a lot is happening and at lightning speed. But here on "Laura Coates Live," we want to take a moment to hear directly from you. What pressing questions do you have about Trump's second term?
So, here to help answer some of those questions, former Democratic congressman from New York, Joe Crowley, and CNN political commentator Shermichael Singleton. Glad to have you, guys, here.
Okay, let me just start with some of these questions we've got. We've got one -- I'm going to say J.R., not Junior. J.R. from Idaho. Well, you might be a Dallas fan. Why is everything happening so fast? He asks. I feel like it's everywhere from drag shows to immigration to foreign aid to paper straws in a single day. Even if he wants to change everything, why does it have to happen at a disorienting speed? Shermichael?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Hey, look, J.R., that's a great question. I think so many of us are used to, Laura, the government moving at a very slow speed.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SINGLETON: Even a lot of Democrats have acknowledged that pod save rules. Just did a talk yesterday, saying, we tried to implement some changes during the Obama era, and we weren't effective at doing so. Yes, it's quick, but I think Donald Trump is attempting to do something that many Americans may find surprising, actually delivering on the things that he campaigned on.
Yes, it's quick, it's expeditious, I know there's a lot coming all at one time, but he promised these things. People believe that he was going to do it. He has delivered on it. And that's, you know, a little different.
JOE CROWLEY, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: But I don't think he actually said in his campaign he would get rid of USAID.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
CROWLEY: He may have said it about some departments. But he comes in and he completely destroys USAID.
[23:40:00]
And when I think about that, you know, putting aside the millions of people that our country has helped save, whether it's AIDS or PEPFAR or other diseases or just feeding children, putting those aside for a second, people who might die because of our withdrawal, what does it say to the people who worked at the -- at USAID about their work? It was meaningless. It was worthless. The things you did didn't matter.
And the generations that came before you, the six decades that came before, the work that you all did, it didn't matter. And we're taking you off right away. We're taking you off the field. That that to me is so absurd and it's so wrong. We're all against waste and foreign abuse. Nobody wants that. But at the same time, in this, government is deliberative, government is slow --
SINGLETON: Uh-hmm.
CROWLEY: But you have -- you know, you -- it's that way because you're working in a bipartisan way. It's not going to happen overnight. You're -- you're not a king. You're not a dictator.
COATES: Well, food for thought on both of you. I want to go to our next question. We have a lot of people who want to ask. Andy -- Andy asked this question. Why are Democrats so opposed to the Trump administration exposing waste and corruption and abuse? The Democrats are more concerned about protecting the bureaucracy instead of the taxpayers and citizens. I need to write that segue for you, Joe. We want you to respond to it.
CROWLEY: But they haven't exposed any corruption. They haven't exposed any abuse. All they're doing is dismantling and destroying. They're just taking it away and saying, well, we'll find the abuse later, but first, we're just going to get rid of everybody. And that to me is -- it's cynical. It's -- it's incredibly sad. But it's to that point, as I said before, we're -- everyone is against waste, foreign abuse. That's -- that's not -- that's not new. That's not a republicanism. It's not a democratism.
SINGLETON: I do, congressman, think that the expectation for a lot of people, however, is if democrats are going to make the argument that a lot of these federal agencies and the bureaucrats who operate and run and manage them are doing effective, and people see Elon Musk or maybe even the president or Republicans in general saying, yeah, we've appointed $60 billion, but a lot of that money doesn't appear to have accomplished every single one of the initiatives that the bureaucrats have argued that they would, is that not an example of waste? The average person would say it is.
CROWLEY: So, the answer is just to get rid of the entire agency.
SINGLETON: I wouldn't say get rid of the entire agency.
CROWLEY: That's what they're doing. That's what they're doing.
SINGLETON: But the answer -- but the answer is to shrink the agency and get rid of unnecessary individuals that work in the agency.
CROWLEY: That's not what they're doing. They are not shrinking it. They are wiping it off the map. It will no longer exist.
SINGLETON: The president actually did say that they are going to merge various components of USAID into the State Department, for review of the secretary of state.
CROWLEY: USAID will not exist anymore.
SINGLETON: The president did not say that. Elon Musk is not the president.
COATES: Oh, I heard the shade. I understand what's going on. I'm going to the next question here. Jim from Michigan. He's asking, in part, with prices still going through the roof, why is he focusing on silliness like changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico and buying Greenland? Is it because Musk is really in charge? These callers are in line with this conversation, Shermichael.
SINGLETON: Definitely are. Musk is not in charge. Secondly, I want to say, if you look at the inflation rates that are going up, I have to be honest about that, a lot of this is from the last administration. Now, look, the onus is on Republicans and the president to address some of these issues.
I'm sort of looking at a trifecta. You got to address immigration. You want to address cost cutting at some of these federal agencies. Trump campaigned on that. He made that promise. And then, finally, you do have to address cost of living and inflationary cost. You do those things. I think Donald Trump makes this year looking like a king.
CROWLEY: Words have cost.
COATES: Like a what?
SINGLETON: A king.
CROWLEY: Well, exactly.
SINGLETON: But I don't mean literally.
CROWLEY: That's exactly right.
SINGLETON: Literally not, Laura. Come on. But, you know, hey.
CROWLEY: What you say has meaning. I don't mean you. I'm talking about --
SINGLETON: Yeah.
CROWLEY: What you have to say is me, too. I was talking about the president. You know, talking about tariffs, imposing tariffs. We know that that is going to increase inflation. We know it's going to drive the cost of things that people need up. And therefore, he's not focusing on the issues that he said he would when he -- when he was running for office. The price of eggs, the price of milk, they're going up. He said he would fix it automatically overnight, and it hasn't happened. They continue to go up. And that's why I think he's vulnerable.
They're going to do this right now. But remember one thing, he thinks he has a mandate. They're going to own this all because Republicans control every levers of government right now.
COATES: Twenty-four days in. Thank you, everyone, for the questions. Viewers, keep the questions coming @thelauracoates on Twitter and also Instagram. We want to hear from you. You should be a part of our conversations. Why not?
Joe Crowley, Shermichael Singleton, thank you both so much.
Ahead, it was the Elon Musk comment that sparked all kinds of questions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, CEO OF TESLA MOTORS, LEADER OF DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY: There's a limestone mine where we store all the retirement paperwork.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, this sounds wild, but he's actually right. And tonight, I've got a reporter who has been down in the depths of the cave and calls it the sinkhole of bureaucracy, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Now, you may have heard Elon Musk speaking in the Oval Office just yesterday, claiming that all the retirement paperwork for the federal workforce is processed and stored in a limestone mine. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUSK: There's a limestone mine where we store all the retirement paperwork. And you look at picture of those -- I have a picture of this. We will post some pictures afterwards. And this mine looks like something out of the 50s because it was started in 1955. So, it looks like -- it's like a time warp.
[23:49:57]
And then the speed, the limiting factor is the speed at which the mine shaft elevator can move determines how many people can retire from the federal -- from federal government. And the elevator breaks down sometimes, and then you can't -- nobody can retire. Doesn't that sound crazy?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Yeah. And a lot of us are wondering, is this even for real? I mean, how much paperwork are we even talking about? Well, remember this scene from Bruce Almighty?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Everything you've ever said or done or thought about doing, right there in that file cabinet.
UNKNOWN: Wow! A whole drawer just for me.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
UNKNOWN: Mind if I take a look?
UNKNOWN: It's your life.
UNKNOWN: This ought to be good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I love that movie. Well, it turns out the limestone mine, that's real. And we have the reporter tonight who has actually seen it firsthand himself, writing for "The Washington Post" way back in 2014 about the mine in a piece called "Sinkhole of Bureaucracy."
David Fahrenthold, who is currently an investigative reporter of "The New York Times", joins me now. David, I have to tell you --
(LAUGHTER)
-- I was stunned when that turned out to be true. Why on earth is the government retirement paperwork processed by hand, underground, in a limestone mine of all places, just north of Pittsburgh?
DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, NEW YORK TIMES: That's right. The reason, originally, back in the 50s, was that they needed a place to put all this paperwork. They couldn't -- you know, there was no warehouse big enough. So, they filled these caverns with 25,000 file cabinets. It literally is a cave. And then they started putting people in the cave to process the paperwork, to go through all the different calculations that you need to do to figure out exactly what somebody gets paid as their retirement benefit.
The reason it runs so slow, though, it doesn't have to do with the elevator like Elon Musk says. It just deals -- it has to do with the federal government's terrible problems with technology. But this -- the speed at which those retirement paperwork -- retirement paperwork is processed is the same now as it was in 1977 because they've never found a way to make a computer do what people are doing by hand there.
COATES: I find that shocking. And I'm also thinking, is the cloud -- does it not work in a place like this? I mean, what's going on here? But you -- you've called this, and I'm trying to picture what it must be like to work there. You've called it one of the weirdest workplaces in the United States government. What is it even like down there?
FAHRENTHOLD: Well, so, you're -- if you look just around at eye level, you'd think it's a normal office. There are people with desks. There are file cabinets. There's a break room. There are people eating pizza. But if you turn your eyes up, you're in a cave. You're looking at a jagged rock ceiling. Often, there's like metal mesh on the ceiling to keep the rocks from falling on you.
And then the people that work there, gathering the paperwork, processing the paperwork, when they need to go get the paperwork, they have to go out into these giant caverns. Like, imagine a giant cave full of file cabinets. And to the point that they would sort of even tell ghost stories. About there were ghosts in the darkness there, you know, opening the files or whatever. It was one of the strangest places I've ever been, and people work there every day.
COATES: Well, break this down for me. I mean, if a federal employee wants to retire, what's happening behind the scenes and how long does it actually take? Is it really controlled by how quickly this particular mine can get the paperwork started and going?
FAHRENTHOLD: It is. It took 61 days to process one person's retirement paperwork in 1977. It takes 64 days now. And think about all the things that we've sped up in that time. And the reason is that so much of it is paper-based. You have to go find a piece of paper. God help you, if you lose a piece of paper, the whole office stops, so you can search the one piece of paper that Joe is missing. And then it all has to be entered by hand to go through these complex series of calculations.
Congress has made all these intricate rules about how much people can get paid their benefits. Did you work for the Bureau of Land Management? Did you have a six-month job? Did you work at the post office? All these little calculations. The only way the government has ever found to do them is to have people calculate them by hand, looking at pieces of paper.
COATES: I feel like I'm watching some part of everything everywhere all at once.
(LAUGHTER)
For some reason, as I try to envision this. Musk is claiming that this system is -- well, he's not just claiming. It seems to be quite antiquated. But because it is so antiquated, only 10,000 people can retire every month. Is that true? And I have to ask, how much time, how much money is wasted by this system?
FAHRENTHOLD: Well, it is true that they're always behind. They're, like, 23,000 cases behind. But it's not true that the limiting factor is the elevator. The limiting factor is just the time of the people that are in there.
[23:54:57]
Some of these cases are so complicated, it can take more than a day to just figure out what one specific retiree is owed in benefits. So, the problem here is that the federal government has tried all kinds of automated systems that would marry together all these complex calculations. And they've -- they've all -- they've always failed. They've always spent huge amounts of money in years and always failed and gone back to the paper.
COATES: Somehow, there is some innovator right now who's going, I think I have an idea. I think I've got one for you. It's got to be better than what you're doing right now. But we will see. David, did you ever think you'd revisit this moment in time? I bet you didn't.
(LAUGHTER)
FAHRENTHOLD: I did not, but I'm glad. It's one of the weirdest experiences in my life.
COATES: David Fahrenthold, thank you so much for joining tonight. Appreciate it.
FAHRENTHOLD: Thank you.
COATES: And hey, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
