Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump and Allies Intensify Attacks on Judges; CNN Presents the 2028 Democratic Presidential Bracket Challenge; Trump Floats U.S. Control of Ukraine's Power Plants; Pentagon Faces Anger After Massive DEI Purge; ICE Arrests Well-Known Immigration Activist. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired March 19, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You can catch me any time on your favorite social media platforms X, Instagram, and TikTok @abbydphillip. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the bizarre false theory of a stolen Donald Trump presidency gets a brand-new twist. And this time, it waves his battle against judges. And the Pentagon DEI purge has the department pressing now the undo button. This after wiping articles and everything from Jackie Robinson to the Holocaust. Plus, our own little version of madness. Prepare those brackets for presidential bracketology as Democrats try to find a leader. Get ready to see who wins in our special 2028 democratic bracket. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
All right, here is the question to kick off tonight: Is America ready for stop the steal part two? Because that's what President Trump's war against federal judges is starting to actually sound like.
Just look at this post from Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. It drops the words "steal" and "theft," "robbing" all at once, by the way. What's being stolen? He claims time from the president's term. Who joined the thieving? He claims the judge's ruling against Trump. Who's being robbed? He claims the American people.
Now, the White House press secretary, she's running with it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench. They are trying to dictate policy from the president of the United States. They are trying to clearly slow walk this administration's agenda. They are undermining the will of the American public, tens of millions of Americans who duly elected this president to implement the policies that are coming out of this White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: This is the whole mandate talk that has been ramped up to the nth degree, frankly. You know, the idea that because Trump won, everyone who voted for him or even really all of America, they've got to be okay with everything he does. They argue anyone that questions his authority is undercutting all of the American voters, even if it is judges following the legal process that this very country has used since its founding, practically.
Take Congressman Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee. He isn't even ruling out impeachment hearings for Judge James Boasberg. That's the same judge who is interpreting Trump's deportation plans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): When the American people hear this, they're, like, what is this judge doing? The president runs the executive branch. He's the one who put his name on a ballot, got elected. He's entitled to make these kinds of decisions and not have some judge jump into the executive branch function and say that he can't do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Even Elon Musk is piling on that one. He's calling the rulings against Trump a -- quote -- "judicial coup." But tonight, "The New York Times" is reporting the world's richest man is donating to Republicans in Congress who support impeaching judges.
Now, all these attacks are making judges understandably feel worried not only about maybe their jobs but their safety, because they're facing bomb threats, they're getting swatted at their homes, they're even getting pizza deliveries. Yes, pizza deliveries. Why? Well, they're meant to send one pretty ominous message: We know where to find you. The unwelcome pizzas even made their way to the doors of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's family.
Is this what we want to be? I mean, serious threats against the judiciary and the DOJ trying to delay and stonewall Judge Boasberg in court.
But here is where it gets perhaps trickier. The administration is saying that it will go through the appeals process. All right. Good. In fact, an appeals court hearing is set for Monday over Judge Boasberg's order.
And tonight, we're learning more about Trump's strategy. CNN is reporting the Trump administration expected many of his actions to get challenged and even to lose at the district and appellate court level. The goal is to get the questions about his executive power away from those lower courts and before the Supreme Court. And Trump's team is sounding pretty confident they'll win.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR POLICY: The president has been clear that he is -- has tremendous respect for Justice Roberts and believes it's essential the Supreme Court crack down and stop this assault on our democracy from these radical rogue judges.
LEAVITT: The president has made it clear that he believes this judge in this case should be impeached. And he has also made it clear that he has great respect for the chief justice, John Roberts, and it's incumbent upon the Supreme Court to reign in these activist judges.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Definitely on message and definitely a lot of praise for Chief Justice John Roberts, who only yesterday gave Trump a shot across the bow over his call to impeach judges.
[23:05:05]
Joining us now, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams, CNN political commentator Karen Finney, and former communications aide to Senator Lindsey Graham, T.W. Arrighi. Glad to have all of you, guys, here.
I mean, let me begin with you, Elliot, on this. I mean, the DOJ, they're stonewalling the judge. He was given another day to try to comply with what he is asked about that timeline. They are accusing him, though, of usurping presidential power. In fact, here's what Pam Bondi had to say. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE, FORMER FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: This judge has no right to ask those questions. You have one unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Doesn't he have every right as a member of the judiciary to ask questions about whether what's happening is in line with the law?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Absolutely. Whenever anyone of any political party starts using the word "unelected" to refer to judges, you know, they -- they don't like the fact that they're losing or that they don't have a great argument. It's a silly argument, but you hear it a lot.
Absolutely. The judge has the right to at least ask the questions about the proper application of this Alien Enemies Act. It's, you know -- and to be clear, the Justice Department and the president might win here. They -- they have an argument. It's a plausible one. You know, it may win, it may lose. But -- but that's for the judge to resolve. It's not for Pam Bondi to say that the judge truly does not have the authority to even ask the questions. That's silly.
COATES: That's an important point because these people were in custody. On this case alone, right, they were already in federal custody. It could very well be that they were going to be successful at making the arguments Elliot has talked about. It was a temporary order that essentially judge said, give it a beat and let me just make sure. And they said, no, you have no right to do that, essentially. Why? T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUSH DIGITAL GROUP, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM AND MIKE POMPEO: Yeah. First of all, I quarrel with that greatly. First of all, you made mention the speed. An unquestionable authority reserved to the executive on foreign policy or military affairs should belong chiefly with the commander in chief.
I want to explain something because I've heard this repeated a lot, that this Alien Enemies Act is an act -- it is only for an act of war. That is a complete historical misread. In 1798, we were not at war. We're actually trying to avoid war with France. This was part of the Alien and Sedition Acts when France was sending agents to our country to create discord among the population in a violent uprising to end our policy of neutrality. That's why this was created, and that's why they specifically say a predatory incursion. Well --
COATES: Hold on. I want to cut you off. But it was also because John Adams wanted to make sure that they could see -- it could have a streamlined deportation process. He was targeting the French, right?
ARRIGHI: Right.
COATES: However, the -- the summon substance of it was to expedite the ability of the commander in chief, as you say --
ARRIGHI: Uh-hmm.
COATES: -- to do this, but it's not missing the mark to suggest that the Alien Enemies Act is supposed to be looked at for proper application.
ARRIGHI: Oh, yeah, I would -- I still would disagree with that because it specifically lays out noncitizens in one of three circumstances, one of which is a predatory incursion.
And I would make the -- the contest, and I think the Trump administration is trying to, that Venezuelan gangs with connections to the Venezuelan government creating violence in our communities and discord in our communities fit perfectly under that executive authority, and they need to move expeditiously to end it.
WILLIAMS: Absolutely. And you just made a perfect case for a federal court being the one to sort that question out. Anyone who lived through the 2000s and the war on terror, Republican and Democratic presidents, this is Barack Obama and George W. Bush, dealt with these questions of whether executive power can be questioned by a court. And courts were the ones that resolve this question of whether an executive is going --
ARRIGHI: Exactly, which is why this is being challenged, because it's bipartisan.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Okay. But there's a fundamental problem with all of this, which is the judge also said, I just want to know that who you say is on those planes is who's on those planes, because this administration has a very tenuous relationship with the truth and the facts.
And in some instances that we're now hearing, that some of the individuals may not have been gang members. And the -- and we've seen that in some of the deportations, the people who have been deported are actually American citizens.
COATES: But even if the judge did not have an issue with the credibility of who was saying it, that's still a benign question to say, so who's on the plane?
FINNEY: Right. But -- so, the bigger point, however, I think, is, of course, they use this case. They're trying to -- this is part of a much larger strategy. One, as a communication strategy. Two, as we saw Tom Homan today when he was on the airwaves saying, oh, you're defending -- wait, who wouldn't want terrorists out of the country? Well, of course, we don't want terrorists in the country.
But I want the president of the United States to follow the law and to follow the Constitution of the United States of America. That's really the fundamental issue. What they're trying to do is to use this case to push the limits of presidential power. That's why, as you said in your intro, they want to get this case to the Supreme Court.
[23:09:55]
Similar to the case with the student from Columbia, they want us to be fighting about the particulars of this individual rather than what is the legal question, what is -- what is the Constitution, and how much -- how far can they push it --
COATES: Hmm.
FINNEY: -- before we actually get some resolution.
COATES: You know, there has been a lot of talk on that very issue. Also, the idea of impeaching judges for disagreeing with what they're finding. Not high crime. I mean, I assume that it's articulated. But Governor Walz has taken a page from Elon Musk's or into Trump's playbook to attack Elon Musk. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. TIM WALZ (D-MN), FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Some of you know this on the iPhone. They've got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day.
(LAUGHTER)
Two twenty-five and dropping.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Appropriate to you, communications wise?
FINNEY: Well, two things. One, I believe he said that before the violence that was reported today, and I know the Republicans today have been trying to mix that up. I -- it's one thing to say you're watching stocks. It's another thing to say we're watching violence against the company. So, let's keep that clear and straightforward.
But let's also be clear that the strategy that the administration is also trying to use, number one, or number two, I should say, is really to undermine the judiciary. They're trying to undermine Congress. You also talked about in your opening how Elon Musk is giving money to members who support impeaching judges.
COATES: Wait. Hold on. What do you think about that as a Republican strategy? Do you agree with that philosophy of supporting that?
ARRIGHI: Well, first of all, Elon Musk has been giving money to those people for a very long time. I don't think it started when they started announcing the -- supporting the impeachment of judges which, by the way, has been a debate since our founding. However, more to the point of Tesla --
COATES: You can't impeach judges. That's not a debate.
ARRIGHI: Right.
COATES: That's not the reason why.
ARRIGHI: But for what? For what? Correct. But I -- I -- I want to go back to the Tesla point. I'm kind of reminded of that Michael Jordan quote when he said, Republicans buy sneakers, too. Teslas buy -- Democrats buy Teslas and Tesla stock, too.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ARRIGHI: That was very tone deaf because I'd love to know the percentage of Minnesotans who have some sort of Tesla stock in their 401Ks, if they're in some sort of S&P track or whatever it may be. This is an American company that employs 80,000 people, has revolutionized transportation in this country, and the EV game, it's the most viable car on the planet. He also just rescued -- Elon Musk just rescued two -- two astronauts from space.
I think from the terrorism perspective, this absolutely falls under the category creating violence and destruction to push a political point. I think they should be made an example of it.
COATES: Elliot, what do you think about that? I mean, the idea of -- putting the astronauts aside, welcome home, Suni and Butch.
(LAUGHTER)
FINNEY: Yes.
COATES: But on the idea of the destruction, and Pam Bondi has talked about this as domestic terrorism, we know that definitionally, it would fall under umbrella if you're trying to use an ideology to then convince or intimidate or coerce behavior. But it's not a stand-alone charge.
WILLIAMS: Right.
COATES: It has to be a different one.
WILLIAMS: Right. And people should know there's no federal crime for domestic terrorism. There's a definition of domestic terrorism. Now, there are isolated acts that could be prosecuted, arson.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
WILLIAMS: Destruction of property.
COATES: Destruction of property.
WILLIAMS: All of the above. And absolutely. If somebody just destroys property or intentionally set something on fire, absolutely, they should be prosecuted for it. But we just got to be careful about throwing around the term "domestic terrorism" solely because there is not -- and just to be clear, there is not a statute or crime for domestic terrorism in the United States. People want one. A lot of people have asked for it. A lot of people push for it over the years.
FINNEY: But again, so, to your point, absolutely, acts of violence, not acceptable, full stop. However, A, coming from a president who is a convicted felon and, you know, who's so upset about -- and look, it's terrible, the violence. But you can't pick and choose when you follow the law.
So, are we saying then he -- so he pardons January 6 rioters who committed heinous acts of violence on our Capitol. They just get, bye- bye, you're out of jail. They actually went through a legal process. They were convicted by juries of their peers. However, but that's okay, but it's not okay with Tesla.
I mean -- and this goes to the point about you follow the law, we follow the Constitution, we don't get to pick and choose. If you disagree with me, then you're bad and you're wrong and you're a terrorist. If you agree with me, then you're on my team, and I'll pardon you and take care of you. That's the problem with this president.
And, by the way, our own CNN poll shows the American people are not fooled by this.
COATES: You agree?
ARRIGHI: Well, I don't agree that the January 6 protesters should have been pardoned. I do agree that every act of violence is bad. Full stop.
WILLIAMS: Look at this. You and me on the bikes. It's a beautiful day.
ARRIGHI: I would agree.
COATES: Okay. Well, thank you, everyone. See what we do here.
FINNEY: Okay. Bye.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Let's go braid each other's hair. Same kumbaya. No offense. Stay. Still ahead -- still ahead, the Pentagon DEI purge hits a new nerve. Why? Well, the Jackie Robinson page was removed, and then it was restored. The haphazard approach now raising questions about what exactly is happening at the Pentagon. And tonight, you know what? We have some answers.
[23:15:00]
Plus, as Democrats wonder what the best path forward is, we ask, who should lead them? And in honor of March, we had the potential 2028 primary matchups in bracket form. So, who will come out on top? Van Jones, Kate Bedingfield, and Chuck Rocha are all standing by to reveal their picks on bracketology next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's March, and brackets are definitely in the air. And so, here at "Laura Coates Live," we're mixing the best of the sports world with the political world. That's right. We've got the 2028 Democratic presidential front runner bracket.
[23:19:57]
The CNN Politics Selection Committee put together the top 16 hypothetical names who could potentially compete in a primary. Again, no one here has declared, but there's a lot of buzz and a lot of hype around many of these names.
Kamala Harris, of course, the one seed. We have underdogs like Stephen A. Smith, Rahm Emanuel was also in there, and a whole lot of governors. I mean, a whole lot of governors, as well some former contenders like Pete Buttigieg and some household names like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez.
Now, the party right now finds itself at a low point. So, the question is, could one of these people lead the way out?
We have some of the smartest Democratic minds around to go through their picks. We got Chuck Rocha, a former senior adviser to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaigns, Kate Bedingfield, a CNN political commentator and former White House comms director under President Biden, and Van Jones, CNN senior political commentator and former Obama adviser.
All right, Chuck, you got the hat, so you're up first, my friend. You picked Stephen A. over Governor Gavin Newsom in that first round. That's an early exit for Newsom. Why?
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: It's a little -- a little shock -- shock and awe for everybody because I think the days of politicians that look like politicians are over. I think that people are ready for something different. I think Stephen A., for all of you who watch ESPN, has a big platform. He gets paid tens of millions of dollars for a reason.
Also, at the top, I'd also say that I got Gallego over AOC, but I also want to file a complaint that those are my only two clients and you had them against each other immediately.
(LAUGHTER)
So, that's bad for me. And I had Gallego moving on, and I have more moving on because I think veterans are going to play a big part in what's going to happen in the next election.
COATES: But yet in the end, you don't choose either of them.
ROCHA: I don't.
COATES: In the end, you've got Governor Shapiro.
ROCHA: I think they'll make great vice presidents at some point. How about that?
COATES: Okay. Well, then you've got Governor Shapiro. Right? That's the last person, you think, standing?
ROCHA: Yep. Because I think that, like you said, it's governor heavy. I think it's going to be who can communicate the best. I think these two guys are two of the best communicators in the business.
COATES: All right, Kate, it's your turn. Now, you've had a pretty big upset in picking Rahm Emanuel over Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. What do you see about his style that makes him perhaps a better choice?
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think Rahm is a really straight shooter. And I will say I worked for Rahm Emanuel in 2006, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. So, I've seen up close how he campaigns. I also worked for him in the Obama White House. But I've seen what an aggressive campaigner he is.
I also think he's somebody who doesn't come across as polished and varnished, and I mean that in the most -- in the best way. He's somebody who, you know, kind of shoots from the hip, and people -- I think people like that. I think we're in a moment where, kind of to Chuck's point, people aren't looking for the most packaged politician. And I think Rahm is somebody who goes right at the heart of things. So, I think he's somebody who could really connect with the Democratic electorate.
COATES: Let's talk about your last four because you got AOC, you got Beshear, you got Buttigieg, and you got Shapiro, but you actually end up with Governor Shapiro. What do you think gives him the edge?
BEDINGFIELD: Well, I actually -- I --
COATES: Governor Beshear, excuse me. BEDINGFIELD: Yeah, Beshear. It was tough. I went back -- I went back and forth on this. But, you know, I think Andy Beshear is somebody who has won statewide in a red state. Now, obviously, in the last go around, it was an off-year election, lower turnout, you know. So, it will -- it's a different ballgame when you're -- when you're in a general election for president. But he's somebody who, I think, communicates really effectively. And I think he's somebody who has shown that he can connect with parts of the Democratic coalition the Democrats have struggled with over the last election cycle.
COATES: All right, Van, you're up now. We're going to skip right to your last four. And you had AOC beating Harris to get there. AOC is getting a lot of buzz right now. Do you think the time is right for her kind of politics?
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think that her wing of the party is ready. She is -- she has captured lightning in a bottle over and over and over again. She's young. She's telegenic. And she -- whatever she said, if you don't like it, she still believes what she believes in. Authenticity is going to win the day in the next four years.
COATES: All right. You went with Governor Wes Moore, though, to take the whole thing. Tell me your pitch on that governor.
JONES: Hey, listen, this guy is a whole package. He's authentic. He comes from a humble background, his military, his family. He did an unbelievable job when that bridge fell down. Everybody was stunned by how professionally he handled everything. He's good looking. He's fit. You know what? This guy -- if this guy can't win for the Democrats, Democrats just got thrown in the towel.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: All right. Well, look, a political love letter of sorts was just written.
(LAUGHTER)
Let me ask all of you. It's not lost on any of us that you all picked a governor in this particular city. Is there some method to that? Is it the executive experience that you're drawn to or something else?
ROCHA: You'll notice all of us pick communicators. All of us pick folks who had kind of an executive action. You know, somebody who has run something because people want to look to somebody who has given them the results. There's a lot of great senators out there. I worked for a great senator. A lot of us have worked for great senators. But they're one of a hundred. Executives can say, I did this. Look at what I did.
BEDINGFIELD: Yeah. And I think there's a frustrate -- I mean, it doesn't take a political genius to know. There's a frustration with Washington.
[23:25:00] There's a sense that Washington doesn't get things done. And I think governors who are out in the states, connected with the people working in their states, able to say, here's what I did for you. It gives them a leg up in this environment.
COATES: Interesting enough. I'll turn to you because none of you actually picked the person who secured the nomination last time. Of course, Vice President Kamala Harris. I know she's considering running for governor. Is that where she's better suited to you all?
JONES: Look, I think probably so. Here's the thing. The last -- the Republicans made the same guy three times in a row. Democrats never do that. We -- we're a one and done party. John Kerry, one and done. Hillary Clinton, one and done. Gore, one and done. So, it's -- it's no disrespect to Kamala Harris. This is just a party that we give you one shot, and then we give somebody else the ball. That's just how we play.
COATES: Is that the right move? I say in, like, a referee outfit.
(LAUGHTER)
Is that the right play?
ROCHA: I was waiting for you to throw a flag, to be honest.
(LAUGHTER)
But I'll say this, is that there is a lot of folks right now in our party, you may have read about this, that are upset at the party and looking for some new leadership. To Van's point, that's why we're, like, one and done and looking for something new. We need to find the next leader of this party for the future. And I think you're going see a lot of 70-year-olds step aside in the next four or five years. And there's going to be a new wave of leadership all across this party.
COATES: Does this exercise give a little bit more optimism for Democrats then? They're pretty low in terms of that favorability.
BEDINGFIELD: Yeah. Absolutely. There is a lot of talent in the Democratic Party. There are a lot of great leaders who are out there, who I think are connecting with voters. And I think we got a long way to go between where we are today and the nominating process for the next cycle. So, yes, there's enormous amount of talent out there that Democrats should be excited about.
JONES: Nobody was talking about Barack Obama this time in 2005. Somebody is going to come out of -- out of woodwork and it's going to be electric. We just don't know who that person is yet. But this is -- this is the low point. It's not -- it's the beginning of our comeback story. It's not the end.
COATES: A Cinderella story right fits into my bracket.
(LAUGHTER) Thank you, everyone. I love it. And you can make your own picks at home. There is a bracket for Democrats and Republicans, and it's all interactive. Just click and make your picks. Go to CNN.com/2028bracket. We will reveal some of the most popular picks later this week.
And up next, it was Zelenskyy's turn to talk to President Trump, and the call, apparently, went well. But a new idea has been floated that would involve the U.S. taking control of Ukraine's power plants. And Putin go along with that idea? We'll ask the former ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, tonight, Ukraine and Russia may be a small step closer to a limited ceasefire. President Trump is speaking with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy today. He agreed to halt strikes on energy infrastructure in Russia.
But the details, well, they're murky. That's because of the discrepancy in the statements from Trump's call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The White House said energy and infrastructure sites would not be targeted. The Kremlin just said energy sites. Which side should the world believe? Well, the White House says us, of course.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: I would defer you to the readout that was provided by the White House. That's our understanding, and that's the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But moments after that comment, the White House released the readout of the Zelenskyy call. Now, today's version appears to align with the Kremlin statement from yesterday, saying Trump and Zelenskyy agreed to a -- quote -- "partial ceasefire against energy."
Meanwhile, Russia launching attacks that hit Ukraine's energy and railway infrastructure, the exact attacks that are supposed to stop during a possible ceasefire.
With me now, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor. I'm glad to have you here, ambassador. I mean, President Zelenskyy saying that Trump agreed to help him on a number of fronts, in particular, the idea of these Patriot missile batteries. Walk us through why this would be so significant.
WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: This is so significant because the Russians are attacking Ukrainian cities with ballistic missiles, and only the Patriot missiles made by the Americans, made by the United States, can stop those and shoot down those ballistic missiles. And those ballistic missiles have been doing grave damage to Ukrainian cities and people. Ukrainians are dying because of this.
So, President Zelenskyy, for a long time, has been eager to get more of these. We've provided some, and other allies have provided some. Only the United States makes them, but we provide them to some countries who in turn can provide them to the Ukrainians. And that sounds like what they agreed to yesterday.
COATES: Because the request from the United States would carry more weight, essentially?
TAYLOR: It would. We can encourage people that we have provided these to provide them to Ukraine. We can help that. So, President Trump making that request to allies probably get somewhere.
COATES: What do you make of this discrepancy between these two readouts? I mean, is it the situation of being lost in diplomatic translation or something different?
TAYLOR: It could well be just a mistake, a chaos, a mistranslation. It does matter if -- because if there are two things, if there are infrastructure and energy, that's two categories of targets that would not be hit. If it's just one category, if it's energy infrastructure, then it's just energy. So, it's the -- it's the generation capacity. It's the transformers. But if it's infrastructure, too, then that could apply to hospitals --
COATES: Hmmm.
TAYLOR: -- water treatment plants, those kinds of things. And so, it does matter what the agreement is. I think this brings up a good point, Laura.
[23:35:00]
These are going to have to be identified, worked out, negotiated, specified in face-to-face talks. They're going to have to get there.
COATES: The middlemen have to come out because those who have the greatest stakes must be at that table.
TAYLOR: At the table.
COATES: But there's a really important moment that we're hearing about. President Trump mentioned taking ownership of Ukraine's nuclear plants on this call. And then Zelenskyy telling "The Financial Times" that they discussed the Zaporizhzhia plant. Would Putin, if he should have a say, go along with that?
TAYLOR: Probably not. But, again, President Trump has some leverage. If President Trump has made some points about the Zaporizhzhia plant, biggest nuclear power plant in Europe --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
TAYLOR: -- going back to the Ukrainians and even being worked with or on or by Americans, U.S. companies going into the Zaporizhzhia plant to help it operate after it has been occupied by the Russians for some time now, that would be a good thing for Ukraine, and that could be a good thing that President Trump doesn't know (ph).
COATES: You know, you used to help lead the United States Institute of Peace. And we've seen the reports, of course, of DOGE taking over. It's an independent organization, by the way. It's created by Congress. It's nonpartisan. They are now suing the administration after all of this took place. When you saw D.C. officers escorting DOGE, the personnel, into the agency, what were your thoughts?
TAYLOR: Sad. Sadness. This is a good organization. The Institute of Peace has done some very good work on these kinds of issues that we've just been talking about in the Middle East. So, to go after that organization that does some work that is very relevant to this administration and the previous ones is sad.
COATES: Why would they, do you think?
TAYLOR: I -- I guess it's to save money. We're not that expensive. They are not that expensive. I used to be with them. But they're not that expensive, $55 million. Nothing.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
TAYLOR: But in the big scheme of things, it gets more than that benefit.
COATES: Well, we'll see how this lawsuit turns out and, of course, the continuing diplomatic discussions about a ceasefire after three years of an invasion into Ukraine.
Ambassador, thank you.
TAYLOR: Laura, thank you.
COATES: Up next, American icon Jackie Robinson deleted from the Pentagon's website, and then restored. Secretary Hegseth's DEI purge hitting a new nerve and now, apparently, expanding. Wait to hear what else is being removed.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, as the Trump administration hits "delete" on DEI, some historical figures are ending up in the trash can. Take baseball pioneer Jackie Robinson. He served in the Army before breaking the color barrier. And Defense Department website details how Robinson was tried and acquitted for refusing to move to the back of an Army bus. But the Pentagon hit control-alt-delete on Robinson's page. It actually vanished this morning.
An outcry justifiably ensued. And the page, it was restored this afternoon. And when asked what happened, the Pentagon didn't explain why the page was removed, but said if a removed page falls outside of the anti-DEI directive from this administration, it will be restored.
Well, tonight, CNN has learned Pentagon websites about the holocaust, September 11th, cancer awareness, sexual assault, and suicide prevention have all been removed. Their connection to DEI remains to be seen.
With me now, retired Army Major General Dana Pittard, author of "Hunting the Caliphate: America's War on ISIS." Also here, LZ Granderson, an op-ed columnist at the "L.A. Times" and visiting scholar at Western Michigan University. Thank you both for being here.
LZ, I want to begin with you because the Pentagon said it doesn't actually view these figures through -- quote -- "the prism of immutable characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, or sex."
Basically, this is the "we don't see color" section. But if they don't, why would a page that was devoted to Jackie Robinson, for example, be even a problem?
LZ GRANDERSON, OP-ED COLUMNIST FOR LOS ANGELES TIMES, PODCAST HOST, VISITING SCHOLAR AT WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: Well, it's because we can't believe what the administration is saying right now. It's part of, you know, a decade of President Trump using misinformation to continue to have us chasing our tails while he's actually working on much more nefarious policies.
You know, it's unfortunate that we have to be having this conversation when it comes to a figure like Jackie Robinson because he truly is, Laura, probably the most significant figure, you know, in modern American history.
When you think about the fact that he integrated baseball before Dr. King graduated from college, you mentioned his arrest for not going to the back of the bus, well, that happened before Rosa Parks. I mean, you're talking about someone who pushed and broke barriers long before some of the other historical figures that we recognize as breaking barriers.
And so, for this administration to try to characterize his contributions to society through the prism of being unqualified or through some other DEI slight is just ignorant in terms of the overall history of who Jackie Robinson is, but it's also just an insult -- an insult in terms of his importance to this nation.
[23:45:01]
COATES: The fact a pioneer, integrator and Jackie Robinson to boot, general, to be reduced, and then deleted even if temporarily, when you heard that his page had been taken down, what went through your mind?
DANA PITTARD, RETIRED MAJOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: Well, good evening, Laura. What went through my mind is, first of all, it's disgraceful. The story of Jackie Robinson is inspiring, and has inspired service members for decades. Pentagon has had it on their website for decades. It's an inspiring story.
I mean, when I was a military aide to President Clinton in 1997, I was there for the 50th anniversary of breaking down the barrier in New York, Shea Stadium, meeting his wife there, who was beautiful and generous, and what a great lady, who is still alive to this day. It is sad and should not -- we should not allow that to happen.
But that's just one. So many different stories have been taken off the website like Medgar Evers, who also was a veteran, who was killed by white supremacists in Mississippi when he went back to his home state. But there's so much of that.
COATES: And, again, these are people who have served nobly. And thinking about the why. I mean, LZ, a defense official says the department will be reviewing what has been purged. And they blamed it on automation, not humans. Does that fly with you?
GRANDERSON: No. I blame it on humans because it begins with prejudice and hate. It doesn't begin with computers. This directive didn't originate from the computers. They -- it was originated from humans.
And so, you know, you have to ask yourself, what is the purpose of this policy? Because if the purpose of this policy is to keep us focused on what makes the Military excellent, then obviously, Jackie Robinson is the epitome of excellence and should be featured highly on that website and not removed.
COATES: Hmmm.
GRANDERSON: And so, it's incumbent upon the media as well as citizens to continue to push this administration to be transparent in terms of its policies because think about it, Laura, like, five years ago, you know, a pre-George Floyd murdered America had no idea about Juneteenth, did not know about the Tulsa race massacre. All of that information came out post George Floyd being murdered, which means our education was incomplete or worse yet and nefariously kept from us.
Well, that's going to be right now again in real time.
COATES: Well, some people did not know what you described. I just want to point out, some people had not heard of what you're talking about.
GRANDERSON: Some people, yes.
COATES: Some people, just so we're clear there. The epiphany was not universal but, indeed, it was necessary.
General, to the point that was raised, though, these have been restored. I wonder if they would have been restored but for the outcry. But is it good enough to you to have them first taken down and reposted later? What message does that send?
PITTARD: It's -- it's not good, as LZ just mentioned. I mean, it really starts with the hatred, racism from the top, from President Trump on down. And I don't understand what President Trump and his cronies are afraid of as far as the achievements of minorities and women in the U.S. Military. I don't understand that. But we should not stand for this. But either way, regardless, in three years and 10 months, I assume that it'll come back. They'll -- they'll be restored.
But this is just a racist policy. It's being conducted by the Pentagon based on the orders of Secretary Hegseth and President Trump.
COATES: My own son in his sport wears the number 42. When he asked me, mommy, is that a good number? I said, how could it not be? It was Jackie Robinson's, son.
General, LZ, thank you both.
PITTARD: Thank you, Laura.
GRANDERSON: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, ICE has been trying to deport her ever since Trump's first term, turning her now into a well-known activist in the process. But tonight, they've got her, and the rest of her family calls it politically motivated. Her daughter is standing by to share her story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: An activist, a mother, and one of "Time" magazine's most influential people is in ICE detention tonight. Fifty-three-year-old Jeanette Visguerra is undocumented. She initially came to this country in 1997. She was arrested on a shift break from her job at Target on Monday.
Now, ICE says she will remain in detention pending her removal, writing in part, "Vizguerra is a convicted criminal alien from Mexico who has a final order of deportation issued by a federal immigration judge."
Now, there is some truth to part of what has been said. Vizguerra did plead guilty to possessing a fraudulent Social Security number that was found during a traffic stop in 2009.
She gained nationwide attention when she sought sanctuary in a Denver church in 2017, where she remained for three years to avoid deportation during Trump's first term. It was there that she learned that a stay on her deportation was even denied.
[23:55:01]
And that same year, Vizguerra was named one of "Time" magazine's most influential people.
Well, joining us now is Jeanette Vizguerra's daughter, Luna Baez- Vizguerra. Luna, thank you for being here and sharing your experience. I know you've been able to speak to your mother by phone from the facility. Can you tell us what she's experiencing?
LUNA BAEZ-VIZGUERRA, DAUGHTER OF JEANETTE VIZGUERRA: As far as what I'm hearing about her experience, thankfully, she said that they are treating her with respect and dignity as they should with everyone. But kind of as far as the arrest itself as well as kind of statements from, for example, retired U.S. Homeland and Security directors, they've been pretty vile, I would say.
The way her arrest happened, there was no warrant showed until she was down at the jail detention center. And it was also something that -- you know, it was done very suddenly. And I think the way it happened was just not the best way to go about it because it did happen on her work break. It became, you know, very sudden that no one was able to prepare for it.
COATES: And yet, this has been, I'm sure, the biggest fear for your family for all of these years. What has it been like for you knowing that this has now happened?
BAEZ-VIZGUERRA: I would say, what it feels like, it's kind of like, I would say, a fever dream. We've -- we've always had a bit of an expectation as well as a plan in regards as to if this were to happen because, obviously, we all kind of know her position within the kind of immigration policies, as well as she's very outspoken.
But it's never anything that comes easy. It was very much a surprise. I learned about it at work. I really -- I didn't know whether to believe it or not at first. And, you know, it happens to turn out to be true. So, there was a lot to kind of deal with at the time.
COATES: And I know you're continuing to process this, and I know it must just come and go with the realization that she is not beside you. And your mother's attorney released a statement, Luna. And it says essentially that there -- that there is no lawful removal order for her. There has been no habeas petition or there has been one that's now been filed. Do you think that you can legally try to stop her removal from the country?
BAEZ-VIZGUERRA: I would say, as far as legally trying to stop her removal, it's very uncertain. And especially, under this administration, I would say there's a lot kind of to process here. There -- there's really no respect for the law at this time.
So, I would say we just really have to work on it. I would say that the lawyer that we have at this time, she's extremely aggressive. She has a really good reputation in regards to her work. And my mom has a lot of support, which has definitely been something that has helped in the past as well.
COATES: In fact, many Colorado Democrats, they've defended your mom, and they say she's not a threat. On the other hand, though, you do have a former Denver ICE agent who posted on X. Here's what they're saying was. She is a criminal, hates Trump, and is an open-borders, abolish-ICE advocate. Bye.
I mean, do you think she was targeted because of her notoriety and having been named by "Time" magazine and being known by people?
BAEZ-VIZGUERRA: I would definitely say so. I think that a lot of the people that kind of work within this kind of industry, a lot of them have very much an ego to where the only people that should be in this country should be wealthy, rich, white men specifically, and anyone that kind of targets or doesn't have the same ideology is a target to them as well.
COATES: I know your mother. She has been trying for years, frankly, Luna, for years, to obtain a visa. She does have the criminal record that stems from that traffic incident in 2009. She plead guilty to using a forged Social Security number on some job applications. Is that the reason why she has not been able to obtain a visa?
BAEZ-VIZGUERRA: As far as to why she hasn't been able to obtain it, I haven't gotten to hear too much from the lawyer on it. We do have a point of contact that is a little bit closer with that. But I would say that they're -- the attempts that we've made, they've been cracked down on.
Just mostly, I would say, due to the kind of notoriety that she has, I don't think she has ever been really able to get a break.
[00:00:02]
And it has been a little bit hard to -- a lot of people say, you know, go the legal route, and that's the only way to go about it. But it's really hard unless you truly understand the logistics of it.
COATES: Well, Luna, you and I are both daughters, and I'm sorry for how this feel knowing it's your mother. Thank you for joining us tonight. I appreciate it.
BAEZ-VIZGUERRA: Thank you so much.
COATES: I want to thank you all as well for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
