Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Elon Musk Dominates Trump's First Cabinet Meeting; Musk Takes Financial Hit Amid Tesla Protests; Jeff Bezos Faces Backlash Over WAPO Changes; New battle emerges over fate of Medicaid; Supreme Court Takes on "Reverse Discrimination" Case; CNN Presents "America Asks." Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 26, 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 PRESIDNET TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: But I just want a chance. I promise you, I will not --

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's not --

JENNINGS: -- I will not disappoint you.

(LAUGHTER)

You give me a chance, Warner Brothers. I've seen some of your movies. You could use new actors. I will literally kill it for you in a movie. Just give me 30 seconds on the big screen.

(CROSSTALK)

I will do it. I will do it.

PHILLIP: Wow. Okay, Scott. All right, it has been relayed to the people above us.

JENNINGS: HBO, we own that, too, right? You guys?

PHILLIP: We don't.

(LAUGHTER)

Everybody, thank you very much. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: All right, so here's a new one: DOGE isn't just trying to find waste, but looking for dead people. Plus, the other billionaire facing backlash. Jeff Bezos overhauls a major part of "The Washington Post." Now, staffers are asking, is he bending to Trump? And later, suing for reverse discrimination. It's exactly what you think it is. The Supreme Court may be about to give it nine thumbs up. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live." So, we all know that Donald Trump is no stranger to perhaps unconventional Cabinet meetings. But the first one of his second term, it might just take the cake. Elon Musk got the number two billing after, of course, President Trump himself. Even though the DOGE overseer is not a Cabinet member, he got the triple speaking time, triple the amount that anyone else in the entire room, and he was the first person the president went to after a quick prayer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'd like to have Elon Musk please say a few words. Thank you, Elon.

ELON MUSK, CEO OF TESLA MOTORS, LEADER OF DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I actually just call myself a humble tech support here because this is actually, as crazy as it sounds, that is almost a literal description of the work that the DOGE team is doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Almost literal. Let's get practical. Because Elon Musk and DOGE are not just humble tech support. They're doing a lot more than perhaps restarting computers, doing software updates. They're leading the charge for upcoming large-scale federal layoffs. They claim they have canceled thousands of government contracts, although some of what they've claimed is not actually accurate. They've accessed or at least tried to access critical federal systems. And as a result, they have triggered a whole wave of lawsuits. Musk pushed to reshape the government, so vast even some Cabinet secretaries are a bit miffed.

But Trump tried to put on a united front today, sort of, but the camera is rolling on his Cabinet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUM: Hey, Elon, let the Cabinet speak just for a second.

(LAUGHTER)

Is anybody unhappy with Elon? If you are, we'll throw them out of here.

(LAUGHTER)

Is anybody unhappy?

(APPLAUSE)

They are -- they have a lot of respect for Elon and -- that he's doing this. And some disagree a little bit, but I will tell you, for the most part, I think everyone is not only happy, they're thrilled.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Speak now or forever hold your peace at a shotgun wedding. Now, most of that little bit of disagreement is over the "what did you do last week?" email. Musk says another one is coming after the downright confusion and mixed messages over whether federal workers should even respond. He claims about a million people have replied so far and tried to explain just what it's all about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUSK: I think that email perhaps was best interpreted as a performance review, but actually it was a pulse check review. Do you have a pulse?

(LAUGHTER)

Do you have a pulse and two neurons? So, if you have a pulse and two neurons, you can reply to an email. We think there are a number of people on the government payroll who are dead, which is probably why they can't respond, and some people who are not real people, like they're literally fictional individuals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Dead people. Where have I heard this before?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I See dead people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Just to be clear, if the goal is to find dead people, there are better ways than mass emailing millions of federal workers, or you might say more efficient ways, right? And this seems to give away that it was just more than a pulse check. I mean, messages must post it or repost it on his platform, indicating it is some kind of performance review. He talks about people with good responses getting promotions. Then you've got the president himself, who interrupted the Cabinet meeting to say this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I'd like to add that those million people that haven't responded, though, Elon, they are on the bubble.

[23:04:58]

You know, I wouldn't say that we're thrilled about it. You know, they haven't responded. Now, maybe they don't exist. Maybe they're going to be gone. Maybe they're not around. Maybe they have other jobs. Maybe they moved and they're not where they're supposed to be. A lot of things could have happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: A lot of maybes. Incredibly vague and maybe that's the point, because it keeps the door open for Trump to decide what he wants to do. Joining me now, CNN analyst Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Democrat strategist Chuck Rocha, also CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. Maybe I'll ask all of you questions on this maybe sort of night.

Zolan, let me ask you this because Musk, he held court three times as long as the president of the United States or any other Cabinet member today. And they listened on intently. They were obviously tied to what he was saying. What did that suggest to you in terms of, either one, their interest or also the power dynamic, in that room?

ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: That any leadership in the Cabinet agencies that might have been frustrated by Musk's messaging this past weekend will need to show deference to Elon Musk. You had this striking image of the world's richest man in this room standing, you know, not with a seat at the table, but standing over the Cabinet. And you have that moment where at one point, President Trump asked the table, does anyone have a problem with Elon Musk here?

I saw that in a way as almost a little mini loyalty test. We know that this president has conducted loyalty tests for people coming in. He wants people aligned with his agenda. And this moment here was almost him saying, you know, I'm happy with Musk's work, fall in line as well.

The Cabinet meeting in general will only add to the confusion that many federal workers are expressing right now. You know, the changing of explanation, saying that it's a pulse check, but to your point, you said in your introduction, it did seem like a performance review. You add on to that the fact that some agencies over the weekend were actually saying, don't respond to this because you're working on sensitive matters. All of that, this adds to a moment of confusion right now. And for some federal employees, real panic about what's next.

And we also know from this meeting what might be next. He said at one point that Lee Zeldin should also cut 65% of those who are working on environmental policies. And we know more layoffs and firings are coming.

COATES: So, is confusion the point, Shermichael?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: No, I mean, look, Elon Musk wasn't at the table. I get the palace intrigue. Clearly, the administration, the president, wanted to showcase to the viewing public and to the media that they recognize his appointment and his importance. Yet he is not a Senate- confirmed member of the president's Cabinet.

The president also answered a question from a reporter about some of his Cabinet secretaries having their own autonomy to explore the process of making cuts on their own: Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, and I believe one other Cabinet secretary.

And so I think while Musk's role is important in terms of helping the president meet his agenda of trying to shrink the size of government and looking for waste and potential fraud and abuse, I think it's very clear that the president wants the American public to understand that it will be his Cabinet secretaries with his designation and final say so who will make the ultimate decisions here on what happens within their individual agencies, not Elon Musk. And Musk was even clearer about that.

COATES: But you could see, to Zolan's point, the idea. If my administrator, if my boss in my actual agency is telling me not to respond, but then I've got him sitting before the president of the United States with the president saying, everyone thinks he's doing great work, you can imagine a federal employee who's like, I can't really serve two masters, I'm going to go with the person who's next to the president more than the person who's in my office. That could cause some confusion.

SINGLETON: I mean, I guess I get that point, but I would also say, Laura, that, again, I don't think some of those appointees would make the decision to Musk and to the general public that they're going to ultimately be the final arbiter in terms of what cuts are made, if any cuts whatsoever, without Donald Trump being aware. We've seen that --

COATES: If not them, who?

SINGLETON: We've seen that coming out for what? Two, three days now. And again, Trump signaled that he will allow them to be the final decision makers on that point and not even on Musk. And I just don't want that to get lost upon the public. Yes, Musk is playing a critical role, richest man in the world, I get, again, that palace intrigue, but he's not a Senate-confirmed appointee. Then the individuals who are will make the decision, not Musk.

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: He may not be Senate- confirmed, but there was no doubt, Laura. And nobody who's got half a brain looking at this meeting could tell he was the most important person in that room.

COATES: The phrase is "a pulse and two neurons." Now, that's the thing. No longer half a brain. Elon Musk has dictated it.

ROCHA: All of those things. I don't understand what that neuron thing meant.

(LAUGHTER)

But I will say that he got all the speaking time. And to a poor, old boy from East Texas, that means you're the most important person in the room.

[23:09:57]

It also has proven to me that none of these other Cabinet secretaries, many of those which are also very rich men, are not going to say anything either. This was a thing to show Donald Trump to say, this is my boy, he's the richest man in the world, and he's going to be in charge of this. And the American people are going to be with us, lock, stock, and barrel whether they all like it or not, and we're going to do all of these things whether you like it or not.

COATES: By the way, listen to what Musk had to say about the pressure building up, about the forthcoming actions. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUSK: The reason I'm here, and taking a lot of flak, and getting a lot of death threats, by the way, I mean, I'd like to stack them up, you know. But if we don't do this, America will go bankrupt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, obviously, he's enduring quite a bit, as are federal employees, for different reasons, obviously. But tell me about who might take the heat for all of this chaos, Zolan. I mean, if he's saying, if we don't do this, bankruptcy results. People are angry at Democrats for not doing enough to counter it. They're questioning Republicans about whether they are ceding authority. Who holds the bag?

KANNO-YOUNGS: I think that's going to depend on a couple other factors here when we talk about the ripple effect and the reaction, particularly on the American people. It depends on consumer prices and what people are feeling each day. It depends on the impact of these forthcoming tariffs as well.

I do think, one point, that we need to stress just is, that when we talk about these layoffs of federal employees, it's not just people in D.C., it's not just people in Washington. You've seen some of the frustration happening at town halls around the country right now, economic frustration as well. And a lot of these people that, you know, are facing the repercussions of these actions are people around the country.

But in terms of the longstanding reaction and economic frustration in whether or not that really impacts this administration or who it will impact, I think that'll depend on what happens with consumer prices and the economy in the weeks ahead.

COATES: So, why do you guys think the fixation on the search for the dead? I mean, what --

ROCHA: It's something we've talked about since we were little kids, about the golden toilets at the Pentagon and dead people getting Social Security checks. Like even me, a guy who grew up with world books without the internet, knew about those myths. So, they're trying to bring it to life in a story for folks to believe and capture so that they can do what they want. What Elon Musk wants is not --

COATES: Well, we've seen this before, Chuck. I mean, in terms of voting, fraud. We've heard these accusations.

UNKNOWN: Absolutely.

COATES: We've heard about, you know, one example. What's the phrase? An anecdote, the plural of anecdote is not data.

UNKNOWN: Right.

COATES: But it's effective for people to say, if there's one, it must be more.

ROCHA: Exactly right. So, it creates a narrative, is my point here. And when it creates the narrative, you have people believing that because what Elon Musk wants is not a fist in the government. He wants the biggest data supply in all the world so we can create a bigger AI model. And if he gets his hands on that data, he may say he's doing it to put AI and update the government.

If you can update the government, make everything run smoothly, or get my trash picked up on Tuesdays quicker, I'm all in, but I don't think that's what it's about.

SINGLETON: Well, look, we all know that fraud and waste exist in the federal government. We can go all the way back to the early --

KANNO-YOUNGS: I think --

SINGLETON: -- but we can go back to the early 90s, and I keep bringing up this example of Bill Clinton. Now, look, he had a different process, more methodical. And now, he eliminated a couple hundred thousand jobs.

But the reality is people did lose their jobs. And that was ultimately part of the process to shrink government, to cut waste, make it more efficient for the American people. Musk is doing it a bit more expeditiously. There are going to be some errors, some faults that occur because he's moving so quickly.

COATES: In fact -- I don't want to cut you off, Shermichael. I want you to finish your point. I don't want to cut you off. Excuse me. But you raised a good point because Musk actually identifies some mistakes he has made. I want you to respond to what he had to say. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUSK: We won't be perfect. But when we make a mistake, we'll fix it very quickly. So, for example, with USAID, one of the things we accidentally cancelled very briefly was Ebola prevention. I think we all want Ebola prevention. So, we restored the Ebola prevention immediately.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He's addressing --

SINGLETON: He's addressing that, and I think it's important because you see a lot of the media coverage and reporting on this particular example. I think it was a nuclear researchers or scientists who were fired accidentally, and they rescinded those layoffs. These things are going to occur. And I think recognizing that, notifying the American public that they understand the importance of being more surgical like with the scalpel as they move forward, does maintain trust among the public who generally supports these efforts.

ROCHA: When you connect these two, when that starts affecting people's process, then you're going to see repercussions. That's when it's going to really happen. When a larger group of the American public outside of federal workers who are definitely going to feel it, when the rest of America starts feeling it, if something happens, if they break something big, then you're going to see a real difference in the midterms.

SINGLETON: Let's hope they make it better, though, Chuck. Can we at least agree on that?

ROCHA: I'm not hoping for worse. No, get my trash picked up on Tuesday.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: I don't know if these things happen or (INAUDIBLE) is what the American people want to hear in the end. But, hmm. Thanks, everyone.

Up next, before Elon Musk became the Democrats' top foe, he was the E.V. hero and made a ton of money doing it at Tesla. So, what about now? Well, Harry Enten has some pretty revealing numbers for us ahead.

[23:15:00]

And later, Alexa, why is the former top editor at "The Washington Post" so mad at Jeff Bezos tonight? Don't worry. If Alexa won't answer that question, I will.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: President Trump praising the work ethic of Elon Musk today at his first Cabinet meeting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: He's really working so hard. And he's got businesses to run. And in many ways, they say, how do you do this? And, you know, he's sacrificing a lot and getting a lot of praise, I'll tell you. But he's also getting hit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:20:00]

COATES: Musk has been spending so much time at the White House. It's easy to forget, perhaps, he also runs one of the most influential companies in the entire world. I'm talking about Tesla.

But lately, Tesla has been the target of protests from coast to coast, as people angry with Musk and also DOGE are taking it out on Tesla. Police in suburban Denver are accusing a woman of vandalizing Tesla vehicles, marking some with a red "X" and tagging others with the word "Nazi." And some Tesla owners like singer Sheryl Crow are going a step further, ditching their Teslas and breaking up with the brand. So, does Musk have anything to worry about in terms of that business?

Let's bring in CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten, who is crunching the numbers for us. Harry, tell me what has been the impact of Tesla's bottom line ever since Musk took on the role of what's called a special government employee.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Yeah, the stats here are pretty ugly for Tesla. Take a look at the stock. I mean, my goodness gracious. You know, you go back to December 17th, its peak, it's down 39%. Holy Toledo. It closed that day at about 480 bucks. It's now down to about 291 bucks per stock.

And get this, get this, that costs Elon Musk, this total is astronomical, about $78 billion, billion with a "B." I could only dream of having so much money in my lifetime, Laura. He has just lost it. He's still the richest man alive by a ton.

Now, the question is, why is the stock going down? One of the reasons the stock is going down is -- take a look here. Yearly Tesla car deliveries with increased competition from other car makers making electronic vehicles. Look at this. In 2022, the yearly deliveries were up 40%. In 2023, it was up 38%. Look at 2024. It was down at 1%.

It usually grows tremendously. But last year, Tesla sales were down. And I'll note, Laura Coates, sales were down in January as well. So, turns out Tesla ain't selling as many cars as it used to.

COATES: I'm sorry, I stopped hearing you when you said someone lost 70 billion and still was the richest man in the world.

ENTEN: I know, I know.

COATES: I'm trying to process that.

ENTEN: Dream the dream.

COATES: I don't even know what that looks like. But let me ask you, Harry, Republicans in Washington, according to Trump, they love him. But how do Democrats do the job that Musk is doing?

ENTEN: Yeah, Republicans do love Elon Musk. But Democrats, this was one of the most shocking stats I have seen. This is the net favorable rating among Democrats in percentage points. I almost couldn't believe it. I had to check my numbers two, three times to make sure.

Back in August of 2017, they really loved Elon Musk. His net favorable rating was plus 35 points. Look at where it was in February of 2025. Minus 91 points. Do some quick math with me. That's a change of more than 120 points in the negative direction. Democrats used to love Elon Musk have completely turned against him. They hate him now.

And why is that so important? Why is that so important? Because who are the people who own electric cars? Well, they ain't necessarily Republicans. Just 20% of those who own electric cars are Republicans. The vast majority on the left side of the spectrum, they're either independents or Democrats. So now that Democrats are hating Elon Musk, that's perhaps one reason why Tesla is struggling.

We can't say for sure. We'll have to wait and see. But it certainly ain't necessarily good news for Tesla when one of their core bases is hating the owner of the company that makes the cars.

COATES: That's a huge shift. Harry Enten, thank you so much for crunching those numbers for us.

ENTEN: Thank you.

COATES: Well, another billionaire is facing backlash tonight. Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder and owner of "The Washington Post," taking the op-ed pages into a, well, shall we say, a new direction, saying it will defend two principles, personal liberties and free markets.

Bezos says the op-ed pages will cover other topics, too, but -- quote -- "viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others." When Bezos purchased the paper, he said he will never intervene in day-to-day operations. Now, some critics argue the paper is lurching to the right. The writing may have been on the wall for months. The Post itself reported that Bezos pulled the plug on presidential endorsements just last year, expected to endorse the vice president at that time, Kamala Harris.

And with me now, a journalist and historian, Eoin Higgins. He's also the author of the new book, "Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left." Eoin, glad to have you here. I mean, Bezos initially, initially vowed not to get involved in day-to- day decisions. So, what changed?

EOIN HIGGINS, JOURNALIST, HISTORIAN, AUTHOR: Well, that was what he said in the beginning. Yeah, thank you for having me.

[23:24:50]

But as time went on, I think that Bezos began to make a calculation, especially over the last year, where he figured that if Trump would win and "The Washington Post," his paper, the paper that's aligned with Bezos, that's publicly tied to him, if that paper endorsed Harris, that Trump might be the type of person who might, you know, take that out on Bezos, and he might, you know, cut some of the contracts that Amazon has, AWS, Amazon Web Services, with the government.

And so, I think that Bezos made the calculation that it was better to try to keep Trump happy and kind of knew, I think, that if -- simply not endorsing Harris wasn't going to lead to any kind of political, you know, kickback from the Democrats.

And so, I think that that's the main reason why he started this shift. And then once we got to the point of the inauguration with him on the -- on the (INAUDIBLE) and now, I think he has kind of embrace the kind of more conservative leaning of Washington at the moment.

COATES: So, why do you think this is happening now? If the idea is that maybe an economic strategy trying to head off retaliation, not maybe it's politics, why not? What's influencing these decisions today?

HIGGINS: I mean, that's a good question. I think that Bezos wants to get closer to Trump. I think he wants to align himself more tightly with the current government. Remember, the Republicans not only had the presidency, they have both houses of Congress.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

HIGGINS: So, when you have the amount of political and financial interplay between Washington and the company like Amazon, I think you probably want to kind of tilt more to the right, especially if the right is in power.

Let's also remember, when he is talking about open markets here and personal liberty, he is not talking about the free market approach that might lead to Amazon facing more competition, he is not talking about the kind of personal liberty that's allowing people at his op-ed page to write whatever they want.

This is a very specific coded language that he's using that basically means that he wants a more right-wing opinion page. And that's what "The New York Times" reported today. They reported that he wanted a more -- I think he referred to it as a more "Wall Street Journal" opinion page. That's the Murdoch-owned paper.

So, I think that if you kind of look at Bezos's moves in that context, you can kind of see an ideological conservative lean.

COATES: You know, I'm paraphrasing here, but he almost suggested that, you know, viewpoints that are more diverse ideologically, that were once maybe found on these opinion pages, can now be found on the internet. So, fear or not, whether you think that's acceptable or not.

But your new book, Owen, it examines how Bezos, how Musk, how other tech billionaires, they are actually reshaping, you believe, the media. I mean, billionaires have always influenced the landscape. But what is different about this particular moment that they have, perhaps, this entree in?

HIGGINS: Well, at this moment, I think the internet is a good point, right, that Bezos is making here, that you can find all of these viewpoints online. You can, and that has led to a kind of democratization and a decentralization of the media. You know, power kind of moving away from the mainstream, from institutional media. These are good things, I think. But what these tech billionaires have done is they have taken that good thing as a base, and they have turned it to their own means.

Now, a lot of these guys do not like the way that they have been treated over the last decade, 15 years or so, by the media. There has been lot more critical media coverage. And their response to this has been to flood the zone, as it were, with all of their money, investing in all of these different media platforms, media companies, whether it be Substack, Rumble, Colin, which I used for a while. There are multiple different platforms. They throw money at all of this stuff. The end goal here is to decentralize and to kind of weaken institutional media and critical independent media, kind of just put so much stuff out there that there is a lot to pay attention to and kind of can lead to almost like an overwhelming media landscape.

That's kind of the position that we find ourselves in now where they have given a lot of money to a lot of people whose ideology may be a little more left-leaning, but have come across some more right-wing stuff now as the money has kind of pushed them forward. This is all part of a larger kind of infrastructure that they have with conferences, speaking fees, et cetera.

COATES: Be careful what you wish for. Decentralizing doesn't necessarily translate to credible or trustworthy sourcing. Eoin Higgins, thank you so much.

Still ahead, a new battle emerges over the fate of Medicaid. Democrats say it's at risk. Republicans can say that's all a lie. So, who's telling you the truth? Plus, have you seen this? A Democratic congresswoman goes viral after flying in from Colorado with her newborn. Why?

[23:30:00]

To vote against the Republicans' budget. Tonight, she has a message for the president. That congresswoman joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): The spending bill that passed last night aims to cut $2 trillion.

TRUMP: Right.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Can you guarantee that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security will not be touched?

TRUMP: Yeah. I mean, I have said it so many times. You shouldn't be asking me that question. We're not going to touch it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: President Trump adamant today that Republicans will not touch Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That coming after House Speaker Mike Johnson muscled through a budget plan just last night with cuts that even some of his own side of the aisle feared could impact working families.

One Democratic congresswoman emphasizing that point in dramatic fashion by having to fly to Washington with a four-week-old baby in tow, making it just in time for the vote.

[23:35:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BRITTANY PETTERSEN (D-CO): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today with my newborn, Sam, who's just four weeks old. Unfortunately, I wasn't given the opportunity to vote remotely after giving birth. But I wasn't going to let that stop me from being here to represent my constituents and vote no on this disastrous republican budget proposal. This is going to have a huge burden on our hospitals and, unfortunately, will have skyrocketing costs. I agree, Sam.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now is that Colorado congresswoman, Brittany Patterson. Thank you so much for being here. First of all, he's adorable. But let me tell you, I couldn't believe, every time I hear about this, the fact that you're not able to even remotely vote, it meant that much to you to be there. You felt that strongly about this particular procedural resolution, right?

REP. BRITTANY PETTERSEN (D-CO): Yes, absolutely. I mean, we should bring common sense measures so that people who are, you know, new parents and just given birth to their kids, that they're able to be home, recover, take care of their newborns, and aren't forced to go to Washington. It's quite complicated to travel with a newborn, I'm sure you can imagine.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PETTERSEN: But this was a really important vote. This was the first step in the disastrous budget cuts that are coming our way. And the things that are going to directly impact people, that actually help people with health care, for the people who need it most, for kids, and making sure that we're supporting student loans, social security, all of the things that are actually helping people, this is going to strip away that funding.

COATES: You mentioned your constituents. That, obviously, as representative, your priority. And you really, with your son in tow, with a visual embodiment of what people are thinking about. I wonder what kind of reaction you've been getting from your constituents and fellow members of Congress, not only how you voted, but the way that you voted.

PETTERSEN: People have reached out just to thank me for showing up for them, to show up with my newborn. I think a lot of moms feel seen. You know, this isn't something that other families aren't struggling with every day, on how to take care of their kids while they're going to work, how to grapple with a newborn when so many places -- we pass paid family leave in Colorado, but so many states don't have access to that. And they're given two weeks and expected to go right back to work.

And so, I think it's an outpouring of support, but I think it is also just because people want to know that they have somebody in Congress that's going to fight for them, that's going to show up no matter what and also know some of the struggles that they're facing. COATES: It's so important as a federal employee. I remember having to save up all my sick leave, borrow from vacation from other people. We had a kind of a pooled resource because it just was not in the cards. And forget having back to back children. You had no leave left by the end. And it's just unbelievable to think about that's still a factor on so many levels.

But let me ask you about the content of this resolution. I mean, Democrats have been hammering this budget resolution, saying that there will be cuts to necessary programs like Medicaid. Republicans, though, including this evening, Speaker Johnson, pushing back on this notion. In fact, talking about that's not the plan. Listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: He doesn't want to cut Medicaid benefits for anybody, and we don't either. I don't either. We're not going to do that. That's not part of this plan. And the Democrats have been lying about it. And so, it's important for us to clarify that. We're going to take care of those who are rightful beneficiaries of the programs. We're going to cut the fraud, waste, and abuse out of Medicaid, and that's where we're going to get part of the savings to accomplish this mission.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He says Democrats are lying. Can you reconcile? What is the truth?

PETTERSEN: Laura, so, as you know, this is a little wonky. But the budget resolution that just passed is giving a directive to the committees of reference on how much they're going to have to cut. It is impossible with the billions of dollars that they directed to cut from the Energy and Commerce Committee that they are not going to be touching Medicaid. It is absolutely mathematically impossible.

So, it's unfortunate that they continue to say that. We know that there was a leaked memo that this was one of the things that they highlighted that would be cut. So, you know, I think this barely passed. We had the opportunity to actually kill this. I was hopeful that I would be part of making that happen. But when the details come out, it's going to be a whole different ballgame. And Republicans need to be held to what they've been saying to the public and also the damage that this will do to their constituents if it's passed.

COATES: Well, is that part of the plan? I mean, Politico has been reporting, congresswoman, that House Democrats are planning to use this as but one vehicle to win back the majority, health care being so important to the American voters. Is that a smart strategy? Is that the way to do so?

[23:40:00]

And if it's not this particular venue or vehicle, what can the Democrats do to reclaim some semblance of power being in the minority? PETTERSEN: You know, people have been struggling because of the economy. After going through a global pandemic, we had the quickest, strongest recovery in the world, but people were still feeling the pain. So, they were willing to put aside their feelings about Donald Trump because they thought that their lives might get better, that he might focus on the economy, which is what he ran on.

They haven't done anything that would address rising costs and bring down the cost for families. And, in fact, they're doing the opposite, including this budget proposal that will drastically increase costs for working families.

You know, people aren't going to -- it's easy when Trump can come and be -- you know, bring his snake, sell his snake oil on the campaign trail. It's different when people are going to actually feel and see daily the impacts that he's going to make in a negative way to their life.

COATES: Well, Congresswoman Brittany Pettersen, I know the work is certainly cut out for all of you. I want to thank you. And mother to mother, I appreciated seeing your son on that floor. I appreciate it.

PETTERSEN: Thank you. I appreciate you. It's so good to be with you.

COATES: Up next, she says she was discriminated against because she's not gay. It's a novel case. And today, the Supreme Court heard it. So, what happens if they side with her? We'll have that conversation next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So, what type of case could cause oral arguments at the Supreme Court to actually wrap up five minutes early? Apparently, one involving reverse discrimination. The justice is hearing the case of Marlene Ames today. She is a straight white woman. She says she received two promotions while at Ohio's Department of Youth Services. But then in 2017, she says she started working for a gay boss. And two years later, Ames says she was passed over for promotion, which she says unfairly went to a gay person. So, she sued.

The lower courts, they threw out her case, saying there is a higher legal bar for workers in majority groups, like straight white people. It's now in front of the Supreme Court justices. And at oral arguments today virtually, all the justices seem skeptical that there should be a higher bar for -- quote, unquote -- "reverse discrimination cases."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEIL GORSUCH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (voice-over): It applies the same to everybody.

ELLIOT GAISER, OHIO SOLICITOR GENERAL (voice-over): Well, we agree that the court should say that at the very, very minimum. But -- GORSUCH (voice-over): We're in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now to discuss this radical agreement, CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams. Also, Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent at Vox focusing on the Supreme Court and the Constitution. Elliot, I'll begin with you. I mean, the idea of radical agreement, what the likelihood these justices side with the plaintiff in this case?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Exceptionally high. Now, that doesn't mean she wins the whole case. It would get sent back down for new findings in light of this new standard. Now, again, what the Supreme Court -- not even the Supreme Court -- five circuits around the country have law that essentially requires plaintiffs who are from majority groups, white people or heterosexuals or whatever else, to in effect make additional findings in order to move forward with a discrimination suit.

That just didn't sit well with the justices, even acknowledging this idea that, yes, people in minority groups may have suffered more putting an additional burden on white people or straight people or whatever else, just doesn't seem to make sense, and you could hear it through all nine of the justices in their questioning today.

COATES: Ian, there was a phrase that was often used. It was background circumstances. This was a rule. Explain what that is exactly and how does that impact this case?

IAN MILLHISER, AUTHOR, VOX SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. So, the rule in some parts of the country is if you are a member of the majority group, you're white, you're straight, whatever, and you sue alleging discrimination, you have to -- you have to show -- I believe the phrase is background circumstances demonstrating that the employer that you're suing is the sort of employer that discriminates against the majority. That's the heightened level of proof that the -- that the straight woman had to show that if she had been gay, she would not have to show.

And, I mean, the problem with this rule is it's not in the statute. The Supreme Court has said since the 1970s that the wall protects members of the majority in the same way that it protects members of the minority.

So, I mean, of course, it is true that straight white people are not the like biggest victims in America. You know, most employment discriminations do not involve straight people. But the statute doesn't make a distinction there. And the Supreme Court is supposed to be a court of law, and so it should follow the statute.

COATES: So, Elliot, on that point, I mean, they may be ready to get rid of the rule. But how would this decision, perhaps, impact other cases? The Supreme Court takes cases to address a particular issue, but they know the wide-ranging consequences of what they say. WILLIAMS: Right. The concern that has been raised is that it could open the floodgates to discrimination suits from -- you know, from just a broader pool of people. Now, who knows how that plays out.

One thing that was interesting today was that the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund had filed an amicus, a friend of the court brief, saying that in effect, we recognize, you know, that this is sort of a ham-fisted standard, but we have to acknowledge the discrimination that people in minority and out groups face. You know, it wasn't -- it wasn't much of a punt, but the problem is that there just isn't a great solution here.

COATES: Well, you know, interesting enough, Ian, no one brought up Trump's name or his anti-DEI push. But that was kind of the elephant in the room that people were looking at as well.

[23:50:02]

Are there political implications if the judges rule in favor of the ability to pursue something like this?

MILLHISER: Potentially. I mean, the thing that I was most worried about when the court took this case wasn't this case. Like, the actual issue in this case is a pretty small deal. It's that it's the first DEI case of Trump's second term. And so, I was worried that the justices might wild out a bit. There is a Republican majority on the Supreme Court. Maybe they'd want to push Trump's agenda.

Based on the oral argument, that strikes me as unlikely. A lot of the justices, including people like Justice Neil Gorsuch, who tend to prefer more maximalist opinions, said explicitly, we should decide this narrowly, we should just throw out this special rule that exists in a few circuits and not do much else. And so, I am hopeful, at least, that we're going to get a narrow decision.

Now, you may remember, several months ago, I was on your show, and I said, oh, there's no way the Supreme Court is going to say that Trump is immune from the criminal law. So, the Supreme Court can be unpredictable. But at least based on what happened in this oral argument, I think that we're probably going to get narrow with it.

COATES: Well, we shall see whether this continues or not, but it's sure to be talked about. I'm glad you both were here tonight. Elliot Williams, Ian Millhiser, thank you both.

WILLIAMS: Thanks.

MILLHISER: Thank you.

COATES: All right, everyone, it's your time to chime in. Send me your questions, send me your thoughts at "The Laura Coates" on X or Instagram. Chuck and Shermichael are going to be back with me to answer them live next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: All right, time now for "America Asks," where we take some of your questions. Chuck and Shermichael, they are back with me for this. We've got Laurie from New York. She's got a question. Laurie?

LAURIE, VIEWER FROM NEW YORK (voice-over): What is Trump's and the GOP's end game? What is really this all about?

COATES: Shermichael?

SINGLETON: I'm not exactly sure what she means by "what is this all about?"

COATES: Was there end game?

SINGLETON: But, presumably, if she's talking about DOGE or cutting the federal government, whatever the case may be, I would simply say that Republicans and the president recognizes that Americans work hard every single day, and they expect the people who are the stewards of their tax dollars to use those dollars in an effective way to meet the needs and the struggles of every single American. And the reality is, for quite some time, we haven't always met those expectations.

And so, I would say the aim is to improve that so that we can meet those expectations. And I think that's a good thing. Now, we're going to have some faults. We're not going to get every single thing perfect. But I do think that this should be a unifying cause between Democrats and Republicans to improve the overall efficacy of government for every single American. I think that's the objective.

COATES: What do you think, Chuck? What's the end game?

ROCHA: I think the end game is power and money. It's always power and money. That's always the end game for most things.

SINGLETON: Can you write me a check then? Can you write me a check, Chuck? Please?

ROCHA: That's what I think the end game is.

(LAUGHTER)

I'll be more concise than him.

COATES: Well, there you go. Look, I'm going to go to Wayne from Washington. Wayne, what's your question?

WAYNE, VIEWER FROM WASHINGTON (voice-over): Why are the Democrats taking so long to attack Trump and Musk on the issues that they are presenting to this country?

COATES: Hmm. Chuck?

ROCHA: It's a great question. I've been getting a lot of, like, every Democratic cocktail party I've been to in the last 30 days. Look, I think that there's lots of different ways that you can go about this, and I think Democrats have done almost all the ways to do it wrong, and that is to sit back and watch.

I don't care if you love James Carville or not. I don't think "The New York Times" op-ed was right. I think you have to do two things if you want to win. You got to say why we should fire Republicans and Donald Trump, and then, stay with me, give your vision for what you're going to do to make people's lives better. We're missing the second half of that.

SINGLETON: Democrats don't have a message. They don't have a leader of the party. That's why they lost in November.

ROCHA: I just gave you a message. It was beautiful. People in the studio are weeping.

SINGLETON: And when you look at that most recent Harvard poll that came out a couple of days ago, the American people actually like some of what they're seeing so far, Chuck. So, to oppose everything people don't want, offer solutions to the problems.

ROCHA: If you've got a Donald Trump poster on your house, you like what you're seeing.

COATES: Well, hold on --

SINGLETON: You guys have no solution for that.

COATES: Joanna's -- from New Jersey -- question actually follows. The question she's asking is, why are Democrats against reducing the waste and redundancy in government? Well, you were touching on that notion.

SINGLETON: That's a million-dollar question because once upon a time, they used to care a lot about this. We're not seeing that today. They're either talking about the past or January 6th.

My thing has been this: I'm okay with Democrats providing an alternative critique to the way Republicans are handling this. That's to be expected in a divided country, Republicans, Democrats. That's okay. But at a minimum, offer an alternative solution to the problem, figure out a way to meet Republicans in the middle in a bipartisan effort to collaboratively get this ship moving in the right direction. They have yet to do that because, again, they have no message.

COATES: Chuck, do they actually mind the premise or they mind the vehicle?

ROCHA: I think they mind how it's being done. I think everybody wants an efficient government, but they do not want folks that are looking over the bird flu to be fired from the bird flu. Like Musk said today, folks working on Ebola, not working on Ebola. Like there's plenty of fat out there. Like I said earlier on this segment, get rid of the golden toilets at the Pentagon.

SINGLETON: I think you guys like entitlements. You don't want to cut government. I strongly believe that.

COATES: Let me go to Tim from Minnesota. Tim, what's on your mind?

TIM, VIEWER FROM MINNESOTA (voice-over): Why did Donald Trump fire the inspector general?

COATES: Shermichael?

SINGLETON: Look, the president has a discretion to let go whomever he wants on his purview, just as Democratic presidents have in the past. That's the answer to that question. It's simple.

COATES: Is that good enough?

ROCHA: No. They don't have a message. That's what the problem is.

(LAUGHTER)

That's what the whole thing is. They don't have a message. Listen to me. I'm the one with the message. Republicans are slash and burn. Get rich.

SINGLETON: Well, you like being rich, don't you, Chuck?

[00:00:00]

ROCHA: I do like getting rich.

SINGLETON: Maybe you should be a Republican.

ROCHA: If I could borrow some money from you, we would be in a whole different category.

SINGLETON: We're welcoming you on our side.

ROCHA: I had your money. I'd have her and mine.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Man, what's going to happen behind the scenes? Chuck Rocha, Shermichael Singleton, thank you all. And thank you all for asking questions as well. Hey, thanks for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.