Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
American Airlines Plane Catches Fire at Denver Airport; Schumer's Plan to Support GOP Funding Bill Sparks Dem Backlash; Voters Lash Out at Republican Town Hall; Trump Orders "Military Options" for the Panama Canal; Man Escapes Captivity After Allegedly Being Held for 20 Years. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired March 13, 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: -- I'm sure was for a good cause. But I just -- I literally lost 20 friends over this. However, there was a time in my life when tracksuits and Bellway parachute pants were all the rage. I'm sorry to say that there are more than a few photos of me on them.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'll pay a hundred bucks --
(LAUGHTER)
-- if you could provide one of those photos, Scott. I'm serious.
Okay, everyone, thank you very much. Don't forget to catch Roy's new episode of "Have I Got News for You" this Saturday at 9:00 p.m. right here on CNN.
Thank you so much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Breaking news tonight, an engine catching fire at Denver International Airport, forcing 72 passengers and six crew members to evacuate. The evacuation seemingly so fast, passengers could be seen standing on the wing of the plane as the smoke rose around them. What went wrong here? Well, investigators at the FAA are working on trying to figure that thing out.
Here's what we do know. American Airlines flight 1006 departed Colorado Springs heading towards Dallas Fort Worth. The FAA says the crew reported some kind of engine vibrations, and the flight was quickly diverted to Denver. It taxied to a gate, and that's when the engine caught fire.
You'd think this would have been an emergency situation, but air traffic control audio that we have just been able to obtain shows the pilots weren't treating this like one. Listen. It's a 10,006. This is her, 1006. This is verified. Not an emergency still. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): American 10,006, uh, 1006 just to verify not an emergency still, correct?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Nah, we just have a high engine vibration, so we are cruising slower than normal. American 10,006.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Once the plane was on the ground just a few minutes later, the tone was very different.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mayday, Mayday, Mayday! Mayday! Charlie 48, engine fire!
UNKNOWN: Charlie 48 engine fire, copy.
UNKNOWN: Charlie 48 fire personnel is responding.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Authorities confirming at least six people have been hospitalized. A traveler inside the terminal watching the entire thing play out tells CNN she looked outside and saw flames and smoke engulfing the plane. Quote -- "I was terrified for those passengers. I can't even imagine how scared they must have been."
I want to bring in CNN aviation analyst Peter Goetz. He is the former managing director of the NTSB. Peter, thank you so much for joining us this evening. We heard the pilot in that air traffic audio say that this was not an emergency, but clearly there was an issue. Why wouldn't the pilot have treated this as an emergency?
PETER GOETZ, CNN AVIATION ANALYST, FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR AT NTSB: Well, when they were at cruise altitude, they obviously picked up a problem in their outboard engine. And -- but the -- the engine was still producing power. It was not causing a problem. They did divert to the nearest airport.
And when it touched down, my guess is something let loose in that engine and severed either a hydraulic line or perhaps a fuel lot. And as you're landing, you generate tremendous heat in your landing gear and, perhaps, the fluid leaked down, and that's where the fire ignited.
But, you know, the jet engines on these planes are enormously robust. They were a joint venture between G.E. and a French company, and they are magnificent. So, this is very unusual. But -- and -- it is a -- a blessing that everybody got out on time alive and without serious injury.
COATES: Absolutely. I mean, just thinking about the images that we saw with the smoke billowing out and the fire that was actually visible and people on a plane. I mean, the wing, very, very scary to see. We also heard, Peter, we heard him say there was a high engine vibration that was causing them to cruise slower than usual. Can you explain that situation to me?
GOETZ: Sure. It could -- it -- the -- the engines, you know, there -- there are series of fans inside the engine that compresses the air and then feeds jet fuel. That's how they -- they -- they fly. In this case, you might have one of the fan blades starting, you know, to let go or to be damaged, and that would create a vibration. And when you pick up a vibration like that in your aircraft, you want to get it down on the ground as soon as possible. These guys did -- did -- did the right thing.
I mean, one thing I would point out, though, is there was a photograph of a number of passengers standing on the wing of the aircraft.
COATES: Yeah.
GOETZ: And far -- and far too many of them had their hand baggage still in their hands. When you evacuate an aircraft, leave your baggage behind. It could cost you your life.
[23:05:00]
COATES: I did notice that. I remember in my mind hearing about that particular warning they always give you. And yet just seeing this image of all these people on the wing of an aircraft, thank God this is already on the ground, Peter, and we've seen, obviously, all the smoke.
GOETZ: Exactly.
COATES: Really unbelievable to think about. I'm glad they were able to land so safely. Peter Goetz, thank you so much.
GOETZ: Thank you.
COATES: We have another big story tonight. This one is in the nation's capital. Is it a crisis averted? The government shutdown that looked like it was going to land smackdab in the middle of major economic chaos seems like it may not happen.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is announcing tonight that he will support the GOP bill to fund the government. Now, he says it's up to -- up for other Senate Democrats to decide how to vote. And he decided pretty quickly as well because the government shutdown is set to start at midnight tomorrow.
Now, however those dominoes fall, this is fueling a whole different kind of chaos, a gaping divide between Democrats. You know, all but one Democrat in the House voted against this bill. Many of their Senate colleagues also want to sink it. And now, they're accusing Democrats choosing to pass it of caving.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): I believe that's a tremendous mistake. This turns the federal government into a slush fund for Donald Trump and Elon Musk. It sacrifices congressional authority. And it is deeply partisan.
SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-OR): It would be an absolute sellout to vote for this republican version of the world that gives more power to Trump.
SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): This is saying, let's just give up even more of our constitutional authority because, hey, he can do a lot worse later on. And so, to me, that's capitulating to someone who's already showing that he's reckless and willing to do a lot of destruction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: In just a moment, I'll speak with Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman, who says approving the funding plan will give a blank check to Trump and also Musk.
But make no mistake about it. Senate Democrats, they had a bad hand on this one, didn't they? Because if they rejected the plan and shut down the government, they'd be risking voter backlash. Trump could feel empowered to make even more cuts by choosing which government employees are essential and which are not. It could also spark even more economic chaos.
And that other card, well, bypassing the plan and keeping the government open, Democrats risk upsetting their base. Like AOC laid out, it could even legitimize Elon Musk's cuts by allowing those to slash programs without even congressional approval, and it signals Democrats are not willing to stand up to Trump.
Well, now, Schumer says that he's making the least bad of two terrible choices.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): The alternative is worse, and we have to look just a month ahead and see how bad a shutdown would be for all the things we believe in, and how I'd say Trump and DOGE and Musk and Vought -- they're like drooling with happiness and desire to get a government shutdown.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, the same poker. Democrats can't exactly fold, can they? They actually have to make a choice, and that choice perhaps couldn't come at a worse time. More Musk-led DOGE cuts, they are on the horizon. And today, in fact, is the deadline for federal agencies to hand over their cost cutting plans to the White House.
Now, on top of that, the markets are still in a tailspin over Trump's trade war. The S&P 500 is now officially in a correction, down more than 10% from its peak just last month. Trump says he's not backing down, though.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, I'm not going to bend at all. Aluminum or steel or cars, we're not going to bend. We've been ripped off as a country for many, many years. We've been subjected to costs that we shouldn't be subjected to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Trump says he won't bend. Well, now, Democrats are wondering if there's anything they can do to perhaps slow him down.
Joining me now, Democratic congressman from New York, Dan Goldman. Congressman, thank you for joining. I want to get your reaction to what you've been hearing, obviously, from the Senate side. And you voted no on the funding bill in the House, but it appears your Senate colleagues are not going to follow suit. Why do you think they should vote against it?
REP. DANIEL GOLDMAN (D-NY): Look, I think it's a very clear choice that we're facing. Republicans need Democratic votes in order to pass this bill, but they did not consult at all with Democrats. And it's a wildly partisan, very destructive bill. But more importantly, it literally turns over the keys to the kingdom to Elon Musk to continue doing what he's doing and perhaps do even more.
Now, Senator Schumer is right, a shutdown will be terrible.
[23:10:00]
In some respects, it might be worse. But let's remember, Donald Trump also tried to freeze all funding from OMB, and that lasted a day.
COATES: Hmm.
GOLDMAN: So, we have to have faith in the American people that they will rise up and stand up to even more lawlessness. But by passing this bill, Elon Musk now actually has legal authority to destroy our government, to engage in more corruption, and to cut Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare because he can move money around however he wants.
COATES: Now the Senate, Chuck Schumer, of course, addressed this and explained a lot of his reasoning tonight, and went right into the idea of these alternatives and the perhaps the lesser of two very bad evils. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHUMER: To have the conflict on the -- on the best ground we have, summed up in a sentence, that they're making the middle class pay for tax cuts for billionaires, it's much, much better not to be in the middle of a shutdown which divert people from the number one issue we have against these bastards. Sorry, these people. And one other thing on a shutdown. On a shutdown, the courts could close. The courts are one of the best ways we've had to go after these guys.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Does he make a strong point? I mean, the idea of having checks and balances in a shutdown will be that much harder.
GOLDMAN: Well, look, the Congress, Republicans in Congress, have completely yielded their own check and balance, all of their authority, to Donald Trump and Elon Musk. This bill just confirms that. And it is part of the reason why this bill is so bad.
If Donald Trump during a shutdown were actually to close the courts and usurp all power and do the parade of horribles that Senator Schumer outlined, there would be mass chaos, mass objections, and you would have Democrats and the American people screaming in the streets to stop that.
That is clearly lawless and excessive, and just like with the OMB freeze, it will be reversed by the American people.
COATES: But, congressman, the people are screaming in the streets right now.
GOLDMAN: And so, I just don't believe that we should accept --
COATES: Well, I want to hear your point, but the people are furious right now, but they feel, as many are expected, they're shouting into a pillow because the people that have the power to do something about it are those who have been elected. Waiting for the American voters to react seems like a perspective kicking of the can down the road.
GOLDMAN: Yeah. That's why I think we should say --
(LAUGHTER)
-- we should not pass this bill. I think that's exactly right. If you kick it down the road and you hope the -- that the public sentiment would, you know, would galvanize you, I think that can happen if he does do what the speculative action that he's talking about. But what we know is that there will be Senate Democrats who support this bill and, therefore, give Elon Musk the keys to the kingdom.
Cory Booker said it exactly right. Yes, these are two bad options, but we can't yield to an authoritarian dictator because we're worried that he will become more of a dictator than he already is. We know what this bill is. We know with certainty what it will do.
I'm willing to live another day and risk a shutdown if the Republicans don't want to pass a clean C.R. and let Donald Trump cut -- shut down the courts. Go ahead. See how that -- how the response is. It would not be good and it would not last long. And every single vulnerable Republican in every republican district would be banging on the White House doors to tell him to reverse what he's doing.
COATES: Even at the risk of Democrats certainly getting equal blame for whatever might happen because, obviously, as Senator Chuck Schumer seemed to outline, if there is a lesser of two evils to take, there's a lot of -- a lot that can happen if there is a shutdown. You could have essential employees no longer being considered essential, not being brought back, just as an example.
So, the real question is, what are Democrats going to do at this point to counter given that this, obviously, is on the horizon, that the Senate is not going to see it your way?
GOLDMAN: Yeah. Look, I -- in theory, it's the lesser -- you know, it's an argument about the lesser of two evils. The problem I have is it's purely speculative as to what would happen during a government shutdown whereas we know with certainty what will happen with this bill.
But I can assure you, Laura, that all but one Democrat and every front liner in the Democratic Party, in the House, voted no on this bill to reject this power grab by Donald Trump and Elon Musk. And I assure you that those frontline Democrats, who took a little bit of a risk in doing that because it's a politically tough vote, are showing that we in the House, we Democrats, are going to stand up to Donald Trump. He's still going to have to come through the House for reconciliation.
[23:15:00]
He's still going to have to come through the House for any number of different legislation -- legislative bills that he wants to pass. And it's a very slim majority. And we are not going to yield to this authoritarian takeover of our government, and we will be fighting very hard.
COATES: Congressman Dan Goldman, the work is cut out for all of you. Thank you so much for joining.
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
COATES: Well, up next, chaos erupting at a republican town hall. Congressman Chuck Edwards getting an earful on all sorts of issues. What it was like inside, and the message from one voter that President Trump might want to listen to. Plus, if you thought the president was joking about taking the Panama Canal, wait till you hear about the military options now being drawn up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Remember when House republican leadership told their members not to do town halls? Well, North Carolina's Chuck Edwards didn't listen, and he had an ear full.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. CHUCK EDWARDS (R-NC): I happen to believe very much that President Trump supports our Constitution.
(BOOEING) COATES: And that was just one of the more tame moments, by the way, because things quickly went off the rails. CNN's Isabel Rosales was in the room for all of it. Isabel?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was a packed house inside the auditorium reaching a max capacity of 300 people. But there were several 100 others here outside that were waiting for hours to get in, only to be turned away. So loud at times that you could hear them from inside of the town hall.
The questions ranged from everything from Ukraine to DOGE. The federal workers that have been fired, that certainly struck a nerve, many of those jobs held by veterans. The congressman pressed time and time again about those cuts that many of his constituents were worried could impact Hurricane Helene recovery efforts.
Then there was this heated exchange from a man who identified himself as a veteran shortly after the town hall began. Listen.
UNKNOWN: You're right, I'm a veteran, and (bleep)!
(APPLAUSE)
You don't take away our rights! Get off me!
(APPLAUSE)
ROSALES: And right after the town hall, the congressman took questions from reporters. And just feet away, this moment of people pounding on the glass door shouting "shame on you" and other chants extremely loud yelling, wanting their voices to be heard. But I did also hear from other constituents saying "thank you" to Congressman Edwards for even holding an in-person town hall to begin with. Laura?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Isabel, thank you so much.
I want to bring in CNN analyst and "The New York Times" White House correspondent, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, former senior adviser to the Trump- Vance presidential campaign, Bryan Lanza, and former special assistant to President Biden, Michael LaRosa. Thank you all for being here.
I'll begin with you, Zolan, because we know the president has paid attention in the past, particularly when it comes to veterans. Will this resonate with him?
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: I mean, we'll have to see. I think -- I think for -- for the White House right now, it's not going to be an individual town hall, but more so what that represents broadly. Now, I do think what could resonate is, right now, I believe there was a CNN poll that found this week that the perception of Trump's handling that -- that the approval rating of Trump's handling of the economy --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KANNO-YOUNGS: -- essentially mirrors his overall approval rating right now, about 44, 45%. That's a difference from the first term. In the first term, when he came into office, consistently, the approval rating of his handling of -- of the economy was higher than his overall approval rating.
I say that and I connect it to this event because when you have economic frustration, you have to wonder if the patience will start to lower for some of the actions that we're seeing in Washington. We've mentioned often that this upending of the federal bureaucracy does not just impact people in D.C. --
COATES: Right.
KANNO-YOUNGS: -- but people throughout jobs, throughout the country. You add that to economic frustration, potentially, it's early, higher consumer prices as you see more tariffs, well, then, will you start to see more examples of town halls like this?
COATES: Well, Republicans have been told not to do these for a town hall. I don't know if that's the solution to kind of cover your ears to what's happening. But what do you make of an evening like that where they're obviously hearing it from people about their frustrations?
BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRUMP-VANCE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Listen, town halls are tough. And Republicans should hear it, and they should hold it. I mean, they should -- they should get in front of as many people and make their case.
I mean, President Trump made his case in November of why he should get elected. He wanted to shrink government, he wanted to focus on the economy, he wanted to end the war. You know, he is doing those things. The things that he's doing are defensible. He can actually talk about what the progress they're making with respect to these things. He has to have these conversations. And the best line of defense is going to be those House members that are doing those.
So, I think it's a disservice that we're asking them not to do it. I think they need to get there, they need to prep, and they need to have the smart questions.
But I also think the theatrics plays into our hands, you know, the veterans. You know, he has a strong voice, he should say something. But he has to be respectful in this conversation because the vast majority of the people in town halls are respectful, and we've seen over the years that it has gotten this disrespectful tone.
[23:25:04]
It actually helps President Trump.
COATES: Hmm.
LANZA: That's what I think. And, you know, I think you have to answer the tough questions. And the reality is you're right. The CNN poll earlier this week or last week, I think, showed that people didn't -- you know, people had less confidence in President Trump with respect to consumer prices. What did we see this week? We saw inflation is now going down. We saw the -- the -- the prices of gas and eggs go down.
So, I mean, you -- you can't measure it week after week. You have to measure it month for month. In one month' time, President Trump, we've seen him now drop the prices of eggs, we've seen the gas prices go down. Those are good things.
COATES: I mean, interesting enough to ask some of the people in these town halls to be respectful. I understand the premise, but they feel as though they are not just being disrespected, that they are being actively harmed. They're speaking out at these town halls.
Democrats, I know, now are thinking about holding their own town halls in republican areas to be able to hear this. Is that the right way to react to this perhaps seize on it?
MICHAEL LAROSA, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, I saw Governor Waltz is doing something similar to that --
COATES: Yeah.
LAROSA: -- in -- in Minnesota. I would actually agree with Bryan, actually, on the -- the response that the congressman had in terms of -- of holding these town halls. I think it's the right thing to do.
You know, Democrats can learn lessons from this. You don't retreat when you're under attack. Right? You have to -- as James Carville once said or Bill Clinton once said, actually, you have to run into the fire. As Democrats, when it comes to the press, we run away from the fire. We've been doing that a lot for the last couple years. We have to run into it. And so --
COATES: Why do they run away?
LAROSA: Well, there is a culture in -- in -- in the Democratic Party right now that has treated the press as a hazard instead of an opportunity. And I -- I didn't always agree with that approach, but that was the approach that the Biden White House took all -- and the Biden campaign took all the time. I never understood it. I came from television, so my instinct is to always engage.
But too many staffers, too many strategists in our party are -- are too fearful, too skeptical, and treat the press with suspicion, which doesn't engender the trust you need on both sides to get the job done, and it doesn't help Democrats sell their message. KANNO-YOUNGS: It's -- it has been more than just press relation. Caution with the press, too, when it comes to Democrats. It also seems like there's an intentional strategy right now by Democrats up until this point to be really, really cautious about choosing what to swing at when it comes to the Trump administration.
LAROSA: That's right.
COATES: Well, they're swinging at tariffs right now, and that's one area that I think they believe they're going to be successful in. But you -- you heard Trump already saying that he is not backing down on this issue even though he has been accused of giving everyone whiplash on this very issue.
LAROSA: It's the perfect example of what Carville wrote about in "The New York Times." Play dead. Right? Get out of his way. The events --
COATES: Well, that's different --
LAROSA: -- the events --
COATES: Playing dead and getting out of his way are different things.
LAROSA: Staying out of his way, meaning you don't need any -- we don't -- we don't need to do protests at these federal agencies. We don't -- the events will be the wind that we need at our backs going into the midterms. The midterms is the long game because in order to govern, you have to win elections. In order to win elections, you have to focus on winning and not trying to win the argument all the time.
And Democrats are too focused on trying to be right. No. We got to try to win the election. All right? So, allow these front -- these front runners off -- sorry, these front liners on the DCCC, in the marginal districts. Let them off the hook. Let them vote with Republicans occasionally. Let's focus on we're going to take back the House. There's only a two-seat deficit. We just can't screw it up. But that is why we need to focus on --
COATES: I mean, that's -- that's a high -- that's a high order for some. I mean, time to think about that given what has happened with --
LAROSA: It is. But we did gain two seats in this last election. The -- the -- the margins are so close. The Republicans need Democrats because Democrats are in better shape than people realize when it comes to money, infrastructure, recruitment. Now, it's going to be, can we leverage the events like tariffs? Can we use that to our advantage? Because it's very unpopular.
COATES: Bryan, what's the Republican response if they are going to pick and choose their battles and not have hair on fire? What are the Republicans going to do?
LAROSA: I'd say it's going to happen.
LANZA: Listen, I -- I think Republicans are going to watch them lose again. I mean, you -- listen, we saw every tactic employed in 2016 to try to stop President Trump. You know -- you know, scandal of the week, outrage of the hour, those things didn't work.
At the end of the day, the -- the only way the Democratic Party wins is if it actually has a message for the American people. It can't be tariffs are bad, tariffs are bad, because we've had this whole month of the media saying tariffs are bad, you know, Democrats and Republicans saying tariffs are bad, it's going to hurt the economy, and what did we see in one month's time? We see inflation go down.
COATES: But the markets are tanking, too. I mean, it's not just the media saying and then reverse engineering a result. Right? The -- the -- the markets are showing spiraling. They are having people concerned about their 401K. You're talking about pensions. You hear the influx of it. I mean, there's the quote in the poll you were talking about. There's a new Quinnipiac poll. I want to put on the screen for people to see.
[23:30:00]
Just 23% of voters say the state of the economy is excellent or good. So, despite the idea that Republicans could feel confident about how people feel it, the numbers have been very different.
LANZA: Listen, the number that's most important is when Donald Trump took, you know, his oath of office, inflation rate was at 3.1%. Where is it today? It's at 2.8%. So, it's moving in the right direction, which is what we learned from the last election, that the most important number that matters is affordability and matters is inflation.
It doesn't matter what the stock market looks like. It doesn't matter what unemployment looks like. The thing that people are feeling the most is affordability. And if you look at what has happened to gas prices, and if you look at what happened to eggs prices, which I was on the show, we were talking about it, everybody on CNN was talking about egg prices, a month into his administration, egg prices are down from when he started.
COATES: Is that --
LANZA: That's a win.
COATES: Do the numbers follow that?
KANNO-YOUNGS: I mean, again, it's -- it's -- it's very early right now. And when you talk to most economists at this point, they would say also that, you know, consumer prices would tend to go up as you implement more tariffs. So, I mean, we are going to have to watch that.
COATES: That -- that is the consumer who will bear the cost of tariffs.
LANZA: No, no, no. Look at the first term. Look at the first --
COATES: Who wouldn't bear the cost of it if you increase the tariffs? They're -- they're going to have the prices go to the action market consumer.
LANZA: Look, I will say look at the first term. You know, President Trump passed tariffs in the first term.
COATES: Uh-huh.
LANZA: And what -- affordability was at the best index it had been in 30 years. And that's the thing that matters. It's not whether prices go up, it's whether wages go up even faster and whether new jobs are created. So, yes, you're going to have prices go up as a result of tariffs, but what matters more is that wages go up faster. That's going to be the key. It's not going to be that eggs are 5% anymore.
LAROSA: That's not what happened in Trump 1.0. When they -- when Trump 1.0 instituted their -- their tariffs, the trade deficit went up, manufacturing went down, economic growth went down. Everything -- as Al Gore said, everything that is supposed to be up was down. Everything that was down -- supposed to be down was up.
LANZA: I do think --
LAROSA: And they -- they're not -- he has not learned that protectionism has always failed, always failed when it comes to the American economy. And he is going to learn that again. And by the way, that was before the pandemic that he -- that he did that. That was before.
So, he's taking a huge risk when he had so much goodwill with the stock market and the anticipation of deregulation. All of that is going to be negated now. The private sector is going to go crazy because of these tariffs. It's going to negate all the deregulation and tax reform they were looking forward to.
COATES: We will see. The polls, either they lie or they don't, depending on if you're up ahead. Thanks, everyone. Still ahead, is President Trump treating the world like the board game risk? Well, tonight, the stunning statements he's making about taking Canada and Greenland, and now even perhaps military options for the Panama Canal. All of it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, President Trump is openly talking about bringing back an era of American expansionism not seen since World War II. A new Pentagon memo outlines possible military options at the Panama Canal. Why? To ensure the U.S. has unfettered access to the 50-mile long waterway that's crucial for shipping. Trump has already signaled his end goal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: To further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal --
(APPLAUSE)
-- and we've already started doing it. We didn't give it to China. We gave it to Panama. And we're taking it back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, despite Trump's claim, Panama controls the canal, not China. But Panama is just the one aspect of Trump's expansionist talk. For weeks now, he has openly talked about annexing Canada and also Greenland. Some have brushed it off as an entirely joking experience, but listen to what Trump said about Canada at the White House with the NATO secretary general right by his side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: To be honest with you, Canada only works as a state. It doesn't -- we don't need anything they have. As a state, it would be one of the great states, anyway.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And Greenland? He's not joking about that, it seems, either.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We need that for international security. Not just security, international. We have a lot of our favorite players, you know, cruising around the coast, and we have to be careful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, Greenland's prime minister rejecting Trump's threat, saying -- quote -- "enough is enough."
With me now, David Sanger, a CNN political and national security analyst and correspondent for "The New York Times," and CNN military analyst and retired Air Force colonel, Cedric Leighton. Gentlemen, glad to have both of you here. Colonel, what is the strategic importance of these three spaces?
CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL: Well, start -- starting with Panama, of course, it's the Panama Canal. It's one of the sea lanes of communication. So, this is one of the areas where the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Military, they need it in order to go through an area that, you know, allows us to connect to the Atlantic, to the Pacific. The whole reason for the canal being built was both for military purpose as well as a commercial purpose.
Greenland, oddly enough, because of climate change, it's going to become even more important because it's going to be right on the pathway between the Russian Arctic and the Canadian Arctic. So, that is one of the areas that could be of interest that way.
[23:39:58] And Canada itself, of course, is a major area in which, you know, we look at it from, you know, basically not only our northern neighbor, but it's also guiding the approaches. It guards the approaches from a nuclear perspective from Russia. So, it is of major importance that way as well.
COATES: With respect to Panama, what would the military options look like?
LEIGHTON: So, the funny thing is that we already have lots of plans to protect the Panama Canal. This is, in essence, nothing new. The odd part about it would be to actually take control of the canal. There is no military necessity at the present time to take control of the Panama Canal. But what would the options look like? Basically, it would be to secure the canal itself so that a hostile power could not take control of it --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
LEIGHTON: -- or if a hostile power has taken control of it, to take -- take that back. So, those would be basically the options. The last time we invaded Panama was in 1989 for Operation Just Cause when George H. W. Bush removed Manuel Noriega from power in Panama because of drug and criminal charges. Noriega was convicted. But that -- that was in a federal court. But that was one of the things that we did, not to take over the canal, but to safeguard it for purposes of commerce.
COATES: So, do you think Trump is serious about acquiring or annexing in the way that just laid out, or is he trying to send a message to allies, adversaries?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIOANAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I think he is serious. The question is, is he serious about ownership? Right? This is the reason you have allies, so that you don't need to own every single piece of real estate. You have allies so that they can help you control it. So, take this sort of in order of, you know, what makes sense doesn't.
Greenland, Donald Trump is not the first one to want Greenland. There was an effort in 1867 to get Greenland by -- by Seward who, of course, had been in the Lincoln Cabinet. There was an effort in 1947 by Truman to go do it. But we have an airbase there. We closed two others. It's controlled by Denmark, which is a NATO ally. So, all he needs to do is negotiate to reopen some more of these. Maybe get some of the ports, get deals for the minerals. Doesn't actually need to own it.
Panama Canal, same thing. We turned it over to them. He had a big victory last week when the Chinese company -- the Hong Kong company that owns ports at both ends sold to BlackRock, an American hedge fund. If you're looking at Gaza, which he talked about owning, he sorts of stopped on that one.
And then the one that he just kept up with today, even with Secretary General Rutte of NATO in the office, was Canada. This is the one that makes the least sense, closest ally. He's arguing about a treaty that -- that defines the boundary --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SANGER: -- between the United States and Canada that was negotiated 120 years ago, and he somehow wants to go reopen it. And, you know, you could get a lot further with the Canadians just by negotiating with them about what you want out of the alliance.
COATES: And yet, there's a lot of alienation occurring right now, which makes it a very, very different relationship all of a sudden. Gentlemen, thank you both so much. Really important to hear from both of you.
Ahead, a story so shocking that it's hard to even talk about. A man claiming he was held captive in his own home by his own family from the time that he was a child until he was 32. And the police, they say what they saw, unfathomable.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FERNANDO SPAGNOLO, CHIEF, WATERBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT: It's shattering to think that someone would -- would treat any person, let alone a family member or someone that was entrusted as a guardian or a parental figure, in this way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Thirty-two years old, just 68 pounds, and 20 in captivity, allegedly. An emaciated Connecticut man's physical appearance so horrifying and shocking that his uncle told police -- quote -- "He looks like a holocaust survivor." How did he get to this point? Who knew? And why are we just hearing about this now?
Well, the man who officials are calling "male victim one" tells police that the last time he left his family property was when he was 14 or 15 to dispose of yard waste with his dad. He says his dad and stepmom starved him and physically abused him since he was a child. Things got so bad, he started stealing, eating from the garbage, and drinking toilet water. Then came the alleged confinement, a punishment, he says, for sneaking food.
But things got even worse just over one year ago when his dad died. His stepmother allegedly became even more restrictive, deadbolting him in an eight by nine-foot room where he says he would stay for 22 to 24 hours a day.
I want you to look at this next photograph carefully. You're looking at the inside of the home where it all allegedly took place. It may be the only glimpse we get into the space where "male victim one" allegedly suffered these abuses. It's also the home he set fire to last month. He says he was done and used printer paper, hand sanitizer, and a stolen lighter to light that fire and finally get authorities' attention.
Now, his stepmother is facing charges of assault, kidnapping, and cruelty. But she denies any wrongdoing. Her lawyer saying, my client maintains her innocence and looks forward to clearing her name.
[23:49:57]
For more on this, let's bring in the mayor of Waterbury, Connecticut where all of this took place, Paul Pernerewski. Mayor, thank you for joining us. I -- I do want to play some of what the police chief had to say today. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPAGNOLO: Thirty-three years in law enforcement, this is the worst treatment of humanity that I've ever witnessed. It was worse than the conditions of a jail cell.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Mayor, what more are you learning tonight about the conditions of this victim?
MAYOR PAUL PERNEREWSKI, WATERBURY, CONNECTICUT: I mean, the conditions were just deplorable. As the chief said, it was a small area. He was held in 5'9" by 8". The windows wouldn't open. The door lock from the outside. It was a dormer room. The -- the ceiling sloped down, so there's issues around that.
He was allowed out for about between two hours and -- or 15 minutes, in that range, once a day, was fed two bottles of water and two sandwiches a day. That's all he had. He had to rig a makeshift way to drain the urine out of the bottles that he had in the room while he was in there. So, it's -- it's -- it's unfathomable to think of what he went through.
COATES: And this is somebody who's 32 years old now? I mean, the arrest warrant in that -- it alleges that he was held captive in that house since he was 11. But he remembers the abuse going back to when he was just three years old. I mean, how were they able to possibly hide this alleged abuse for so many years?
PERNEREWSKI: Well, you know, he was withdrawn from school when he was going into fourth grade, when he was about 11 years old. He was homeschooled. And there's really no connection between the -- the city or the state and families that are being homeschooled here in Connecticut.
There was a lot of psychological and, you know, other intimidation that went on with him. When people came to the house, he was told to be quiet. They rarely had any visitors. And I think over time, his mother was -- his stepmother was telling him that, you know, if he behaved himself, she would try to let him out more. So, she kind of was able to control him that way as well. From the time he was 11, he doesn't remember ever leaving the house except for one incident when he was about 12 years old when he accompanied his father to the dump to dispose of some leaves. But the rest of the time, he was locked in that room except for, you know, about two hours a day. Sometimes, only 15 minutes a day did he get out.
COATES: I -- I can't even contemplate this level of cruelty that you're describing.
PERNEREWSKI: I know. It's hard to believe.
COATES: It's -- I mean, it's -- thinking about -- I have elementary school students, children myself. And the idea of all the many steps that must have failed this person. I mean, the victim's former elementary school principal is speaking out, saying that they -- the school notified the Department of Children and Family Services on several occasions. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM PANNONE, FORMER PRINCIPAL, BARNARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: We knew it. We reported it. Not a damn thing was done. That's -- that's the tragedy of the whole thing. Everyone really was concerned with this child since he was five years old. You knew something was wrong, it was grossly wrong. Sorry, we couldn't do more because you went through more than any of us ever will go through in our lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Brings tears to your eyes to think about that. I mean, in the -- in the arrest warrant affidavit, the victim states that child services visited the home twice, and he was told to tell them everything was okay. Mayor, how could something like this be missed?
PERNEREWSKI: You know, we do know they were called twice. That was the point at which he ended up being homeschooled. So that's when he withdrew from the system. There was no more connection with him.
At one point, shortly after he was homeschooled, we do know that some of the -- his former classmates were concerned because they didn't see him any longer. They called DCF. They contacted the Waterbury Police Department. We sent an officer out to visit the -- the home. He talked to the child, and he came back and reported that everything was okay. And then after that, it just sorts of fell through the -- the cracks or fell out of the -- any -- anyone's notice at that point and continued on.
So, I do think that we've made some strides in the last 20 years for reporting requirements and things where -- where people would notice these things. And, you know, I think anyone who knows or is concerned something is going on ought to, you know, feel comfortable on reporting it. It's better to report something and have it turn out not to be true than to allow something like this to go on for 20 years because you're not sure what to do about it. COATES: So true. Just imagine the lives that you could save and what so many might be enduring. Mayor Paul Pernerewski, thank you. We'll be following this story very closely. Thank you.
PERNEREWSKI: Thank you.
COATES: We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Before we go tonight, don't miss an all-new episode of the CNN Original Series, "Twitter: Breaking the Bird." It focuses on Twitter's early rise and its increasing influence on politics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I came into work one morning. I get to the office. I'm sweating. I had a backpack. I walked all the way. And Jason Goldman says, Ev (ph) is downstairs waiting for you in his car. And I was, like, what are you talking about? And Ev (ph) had his Porsche. So, I got in. I was, like, so Goldman says we're going somewhere. Where are we going? He was, like, we're going to talk to Mark Zuckerberg.
UNKNOWN: Mark is interested in acquiring Twitter. So, I'm, like, Biz (ph), we're going to Palo Alto.
UNKNOWN: And this is the first time I'm hearing about any of this. So, I was, like, okay. If he says, like, what's the number? Like, what do you guys want? We just say something so outlandishly ridiculous. And, I started, like, laughing before I could even say it. Because I -- I made it the biggest number I could think of, $500 million.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The new episode of "Twitter: Breaking the Bird" airs Sunday night at 10:00, only on CNN.
Well, I thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
[00:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Tonight on "360," guess who else is warning about tariffs? Tesla, owned by Elon Musk. We have the latest on the newly-discovered letter from the company --
