Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

FEMA's Texas Flood Response is Under Scrutiny; Catholic Bishop Exempts Parishioners Over ICE Raid Fears; Mamdani Allies Issue Primary Threats to House Democrats; Shake-up at Elon Musk's X as CEO Steps Down. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired July 09, 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]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Tonight, new questions about FEMA's response to the Texas floods. Did efforts to save money slow down the agency's reaction? Plus, the Catholic diocese issues a rare exemption from mass over fears of ICE raids. And later, Elon Musk loses the CEO running his ex-platform. Was it as sudden as everyone thinks, though? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Welcome, everyone. I'm Omar Jimenez, in for Laura. The breaking news tonight, new insight into the response to the catastrophic flooding in Texas where more than 160 people are still missing and at least 120 are dead.

We're also learning more about what happened at the local level as the waters rushed in and at the federal level in the days that followed.

First, a new report says a volunteer firefighter tried to sound the alarm right around the time the Guadalupe River burst its banks, and audio records show he called dispatch at 4:22 a.m. after he saw a highway sign underwater. Now, he requested a mass alert to be pushed to people's phones. The dispatcher replied, stand by, we have to get that approved with our supervisor. And it appears it took about 90 minutes for that alert to go out. The sheriff of Kerr County is vowing to find out what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY LEITHA, SHERIFF, KERR COUNTY, TEXAS: I believe those questions need to be answered. To the family of the missed loved ones, to the public, you know, to the people that put me in this office, those need to be -- and I want that answer, and we're going to get that answer, and I know that's going to be asked over and over. Please understand that, you know, we don't have -- we're not running, we're not going to hide from anything. That's going to be checked into at a later time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: Now, on top of the local response, CNN is learning federal help was delayed, not because FEMA wasn't ready, but because it couldn't get a signature. And what I mean by that is sources tell CNN it took more than 72 hours after flooding began to get approval to deploy urban search and rescue crews.

Why? Because a new rule requires the personal sign-off of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for any contract over $100,000. That rule was put in place to try and cut out what they described as waste. But in FEMA disaster response terms, 100,000 is basically pennies since disaster response costs often soar into the billions.

One longtime FEMA official telling CNN, we were operating under a clear set of guidance: lean forward, be prepared, anticipate what the state needs, and be ready to deliver it. That is not as clear of an intent for us at the moment. But Noem is arguing the exact opposite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. KRISTI NOEM (R-SD): In fact, some of how we've responded to Texas is exactly how President Trump imagined that this agency would operate, immediately making decisions, getting them resources and dollars that they need so that they can conduct the response that they need to do on the ground.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: And a DHS spokeswoman is responding to CNN's reporting, saying, FEMA is shifting from bloated, DC-centric dead weight to a lean, deployable disaster force that empowers state actors to provide relief for their citizens.

And today, Secretary Noem is reiterating her call to get rid of FEMA.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NOEM: Federal emergency management should be state and locally led rather than how it has operated for decades. It has been slow to respond. At the federal level, it has even been slower to get the resources to Americans in crisis, and that is why this entire agency needs to be eliminated as it exists today and remade into a responsive agency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: With me now, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Russel Honore, known for his leadership of relief efforts during Hurricane Katrina. I appreciate you taking the time.

Um, let me -- let me just start with -- with where the DHS secretary left off. How does this new approval process help make FEMA more responsive to a crisis? Do you buy that?

RUSSEL HONORE, RETIRED LIEUTENANT GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: No. I think she's ill-informed and confused. When she said, we send the money, FEMA don't send money. FEMA gives you recovery money. The money that you spend inside the state is reimbursed by FEMA.

[23:04:58]

And in this storm, based on the president's declaration, that was going to be 75%. And the money they are spending now, most of it is over time, and for the search and rescue teams that have come in, and for other expenses that the state might request reimbursement on. But they don't send money upfront to the state. It's all reimbursed. She's totally ill-informed.

After Katrina, the federal government reorganized FEMA, doubled the size of it, gave it enough of a budget to be able to respond. And it also had in the language that the FEMA administrator should be someone with former administrative management experience until we've gotten here. And oh, by the way, the FEMA administrator still hadn't gone to Texas as of today. So, she's totally wrong.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, DHS Secretary Noem, actually, she is going even further, making the case for a FEMA overhaul, even to say get rid of FEMA, as we've heard. But she has also used the agency's response to Hurricane Katrina as an example. Take a quick listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NOEM: FEMA has been disastrous at times, incompetent at times. We look back at instances like Hurricane Katrina, which happened 20 years ago, next month. There are still many open claims left over from that disaster that have gone unanswered. And, meanwhile, in the last two years or in the first two years, I guess, after Katrina, $2 billion had been paid out in fraudulent claims. Payments for Katrina recovery are still ongoing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: You helped lead the response during that time. What's your reaction to what you're hearing from the DHS secretary?

HONORE: There was lot of criticism of FEMA. But the enormous size of the storm, much of that had to do with it. That's why the overhaul of FEMA after Katrina, based on the lessons learned, and the congressional investigation that happened after Katrina, and hearings. So, that's why FEMA was overhauled.

We reorganized the military response in how we send the military in. All of that was done to improve FEMA.

I do agree, FEMA needs improvement. But the challenge, what's happening overall with FEMA money, is that in 2019 -- in 2023, FEMA spent $2 billion on individual assistance. That's helping people get back in their homes. But they spent 12 billion replacing schools, courthouses, bridges, roads, parks.

So, that need to be looked at by the Congress. But that money was appropriated by the Congress because it's the congressional leaders and the senators who get that infrastructure rebuilt, just like they rebuilt New Orleans. So, it should be approved but not eliminated.

On top of that, Omar, if Texas needed help, they would then have to call each federal agency individually. They have to call the Coast Guard. They would have to call the Corps of Engineers. They would have to deal with HHS if they need doctors. JIMENEZ: Yeah.

HONORE: This is ridiculous. I think it's a bad idea. It's broke. It may need to be fixed but not eliminated. It's a good organization, and they have good people there. And it took -- it takes five days to get any deployment approved in FEMA right now. This would take 72 hours while the people were -- they were doing search and because the SAR teams did not get in because she didn't approve it till Monday.

JIMENEZ: Yeah. Yeah. Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Russel Honore, I really appreciate you taking the time. Thanks for being here.

HONORE: Yeah. God bless the first responders out there.

JIMENEZ: Of course. Still doing great work, great work. You know better than most.

Joining me now is Mario Duarte. He is the president and CEO of Project Dynamo, an organization founded by combat veterans and intelligence professionals dedicated to rescuing Americans in danger across the globe and that danger right now, currently assisting with rescue efforts on the ground in Texas.

I really appreciate you taking the time, Mario. What is the latest on your team's search and rescue efforts? Are you still classifying it as search and rescue efforts?

MARIO DUARTE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PROJECT DYNAMO: Well, thank you for having us, Omar. You know, at this point, unfortunately, it has become a search and recovery. At this point, you know, almost six days after the catastrophe, there is very little chance for finding survivors, even though hope is the last thing we lose here in Texas. However, it's probably what we are doing or what the local crews are mostly doing, you know.

JIMENEZ: Yeah.

DUARTE: It's probably the most silent but hardest part of this -- of this type of -- of -- of incident.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, you just heard a little bit of our -- of our conversation on -- on FEMA operations, that they were slowed down by new cost control measures.

[23:10:05]

But -- but is that something that your team has actually noticed or felt on the ground as compared to maybe previous disasters you all have typically responded to?

DUARTE: You know, actually, coincidentally, I actually was -- I was part of the -- of the response team from the Houston Airport System that helped during Katrina.

JIMENEZ: Hmm. DUARTE: And, you know, after 9/11, all of the first responders and law enforcement officers and federal -- federal employees that respond to this type of events have to be trained, actually, in what's called National Incident Management System, NIMS. Everyone at Project Dynamo, we are training in that also incident command system.

So, people that respond to this type of events are properly trained, and they know what to do, and they know that when an event happens, the local fire chief or the local sheriff is the one that takes charge. So, there is always a structure. There is already a hierarchy, you know, planned for this type of things.

When it comes to the bureaucracy, always -- there is always problems, but at least bodies are always available for that. There are always volunteers. There are always people. There are always first responders. It's about actually implementing what already exists, and that we know that has worked in the United States for decades now.

JIMENEZ: Yeah. You know, I couldn't help but linger on that word that you said in the first answer, that there's this quiet now when you're out searching. Correct me if I'm misquoting you there. But we're coming up on a week very quickly since -- since the floods swept through.

DUARTE: Yes.

JIMENEZ: And I guess, at this point, what has been the greatest challenge for your team, you know, today, at this point, and is it different than maybe what it might have been two or three days ago?

DUARTE: You know, I -- and you -- you heard me right. I -- I said silent because it's -- it's -- it's somehow oppressive because you know what you are doing. It's cadaver recovery. It's -- it's -- you're starting to mourn. The locals are already, you know, feeling and knowing what's ahead, which is pretty much finding and giving closure to the families.

And, you know, the hardest part besides that, besides the sentimental and the psychological part of it, is -- is really the technical terrain. Right? We have debris all over the place, areas that look like firm ground but they're actually water traps.

So, all our people, you know, at Project Dynamo, we bring military precision, humanitarian relief, and humanitarian rescue. Right? So, we know how to track these areas, how to walk along the banks of rivers, how to look through the debris.

In the beginning, the first phase, when we're trying to find survivors, you know, we go through the debris very, very carefully to make sure that if there are survivors underneath or inside wreckage, we don't hurt them. Right? At this point, that part is possibly a little bit more efficient and a little bit faster.

But, still, trekking and walking through that terrain is tricky, and that's what, you know, all our training, infantry training, special forces, rangers that are part of our volunteer teams, know how to do and know what to do, and that's what we bring to the table.

JIMENEZ: Well, let me be one of many who thanks you for the work that you all have been doing. I know it hasn't been easy in the past few days. Mario Duarte, thank you for taking the time.

DUARTE: Thank you very much.

JIMENEZ: All right, up next, Republican Senator Thom Tillis suggesting some level of regret for having confirmed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): With the passing of time, I think it's clear he's out of his depth as a manager of a large complex organization.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: And if you remember, Hegseth is now under new scrutiny after President Trump ends his pause to weapons in Ukraine. Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger is standing by with his reaction next.

And later, the California bishop who just made a rare move to protect his parish from ICE raids. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Tonight, the Ukrainian capital of Kiev is under an intense drone attack. The new assault comes on the back of Russia launching its largest drone attack yet on its neighbor, sending more than 700 drones to strike cities across the country. And it comes as President Trump is calling B.S. on Russian President Vladimir Putin Tuesday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless. He's killing too many people. So, we're sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine, and I've approved that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: But could there be an off-ramp on the horizon? Maybe an optimistic way to look at Secretary of State Marco Rubio's expected meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov tomorrow.

But let's talk about it. I want to bring in CNN's senior political commentator, former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger. Congressman, thank you for being here. Let's just start with what do you make of President Trump's apparent pivot/ current posturing away from Vladimir Putin. ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: You know, I mean, look, we've been -- we've been talking about this since he has been in. We always look for any sign that (INAUDIBLE) turn against Putin this time or maybe he really means he's going to help Ukraine this time.

I'll believe it when I see it. I mean, you know, we look at this thing where they suspended aid and claim that they suspended it so they could take an inventory. Maybe that's true, but in the middle of a war that Ukraine is having?

By the way, I think it is important to remember, these drone attacks -- there are like almost 800 drones yesterday that went into Ukraine. These aren't drones like, you know, you go fly outside, take a picture of a house. These drones are the size of Cessna aircraft.

[23:20:00]

And so, this is a very serious war. This is a serious moment. I hope the president is -- you know, I hope he's changing his mind, but we really do have to wait and see because he goes back and forth all the time.

JIMENEZ: And you talked about the sort of check inventory line. That was sort of -- that was sort of in response to five sources telling CNN that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did not tell the White House before he authorized a pause on weapon shipments to Ukraine. I mean, that is a big call to make without the president's knowing.

To your point, I know you said there's a lot of back and forth, but what do you make of that dynamic there?

KINZINGER: Yeah, I mean, look, if it's true, if they did that without telling the president or informing his team, I mean, that's awful. You know, Elbridge Colby is the guy that has basically made the decision with Pete Hegseth. If they did this around Donald Trump, then he should be furious. I mean, again, I would be furious if I was sitting in his seat for that.

So, we'll have to wait and see on that. But yeah, I mean, this could lead to some real damage between Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump because, obviously, it has made Donald Trump not look like he's in control, not look like he knows what's going on with this. And, again, we'll have to see. This is one of those where words are one thing, actions are the thing we have to judge upon.

JIMENEZ: Yeah. It has been a little more than 24 hours since the president seemed to be caught off guard by asking about the weapons pause. Here's what he had to say when he was pressed again today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): You said that you were not sure who ordered the munitions halted to Ukraine. Have you since been able to figure that out? TRUMP: Well, I haven't thought about it because we're looking at

Ukraine right now and munitions. But I have no, I have not gone into it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: Do you have sense -- I mean, you've watched Donald Trump for a long time, so have I, so as much of the country. Do you have this sense of why the president might not be actually saying, you know what, we're going to get to the bottom of this and figure out right now what happened?

KINZINGER: I mean, this is a concern. I don't know. And, you know, I watched that clip you just showed, and I'm, like, we're just used to the president saying things and knowing that he doesn't mean it. Of course, he has thought about this. This is the headline. He pays attention to the headlines. So, what does it mean? I don't know.

And here's the thing that confuses me. You know, a few days ago, however long ago, this story came out, that you guys didn't said this has been suspended. If the president was caught off guard with literally a word, hey, turn it back on, it could have been turned on by now.

JIMENEZ: Yeah.

KINZINGER: We wouldn't have to be talking about who's in charge and any more logistics. So, if I was him, I'd be furious. We'll have to see if he actually is furious or maybe if he knew a little more than what he's leading on.

JIMENEZ: Yeah. We will see. Before you go, I want to switch topics because CNN is learning tonight that former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan, who oversaw the probe into Trump's 2016 campaign connections to Russia, that they're now targets of an FBI investigation for possible false statements to Congress.

You were in Congress during that time. Do you see this as a legitimate investigation or one that's more retribution for pursuing what President Trump has long called a witch hunt? I should mention, you were also threatened with retribution for working on the January 6th Committee.

KINZINGER: True. Yeah, I mean, look, and I have absolutely zero fear of these people because like -- I mean, okay, what? Are you going to threaten me with something that I didn't do okay?

But, yeah, on this case, look, I think -- I think this is clear because Donald Trump has said this since really the day of James Comey, which is he wants to get retribution, he wants to get back at him. And I think he gave marching orders, which is find a reason to charge him or investigate him at least.

They're probably not going be charged with anything. But an investigation is something that is basically all encompassing and life altering. This is all pure intimidation, like they do to, you know, some aspects of the media, like they do to anybody that's an enemy of them.

Politically, they will try to intimidate and scare you. And America, listen, don't be scared. Don't be scared. They only have as much power as you believe they have.

And so, I think -- I think they're going to fight this, they're going to fight this tooth and nail, and we'll probably see if it actually does end up going to charges, that they'll absolutely crush the government in court.

JIMENEZ: Adam Kinzinger, appreciate the time as always. Thank you.

KINZINGER: You bet.

JIMENEZ: All right, still ahead tonight, a Catholic diocese in California now becoming a -- becoming a flashpoint in the nationwide immigration debate as a bishop tells his parish, you can skip mass if you're afraid of ICE raids. The spokesperson for the diocese standing by to explain that rare move next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Sunday mass is a cornerstone of Catholicism. But in one community, it's the latest victim of President Trump's immigration crackdown. What we mean by that is the diocese of San Bernardino in Southern California says it is suspending mass obligations -- quote -- "due to genuine fear of immigration enforcement actions."

Church leaders say immigration agents have detained people on the property of two churches, striking panic really in the hearts of their parishioners.

We reached out to Homeland Security about the detentions, but we haven't heard back yet.

Once considered sensitive locations, churches are now fair game for immigration agents. Just last month, immigration activists said agents arrested a man at a church in nearby Downing.

Joining me now is John Andrews. He's the vice chancellor and communications director for the Diocese of San Bernardino. I really appreciate you taking the time, John. As I understand it, at least one of your parishioners was detained by immigration agents.

[23:30:01]

I mean, what did your diocese -- why did your diocese feel like suspending mass obligations was the right step to take here?

JOHN ANDREWS, VICE CHANCELLOR AND COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DIOCESE OF SAN BERNARDINO: Well, there has just been a tremendous amount of fear in our immigrant communities and our diocese since the raids began here in Southern California. And, as you say, it's compounded by the fact that immigration enforcement came on to two of our parish properties.

And it just kind of puts our immigrant brothers and sisters in a no- win situation, Omar, because on one hand, you know, you go to church and you're afraid that you could be detained and arrested by ICE. And on the other hand, you have to deal with this feeling if you stay home to avoid that, that you're not meeting your -- your obligation of your faith to attend mass weekly.

And so, I think Bishop Rojas made that decision and not lightly that -- let's at least alleviate the burden of that feeling that you're not meeting your obligation as a Catholic. And so, he grants the dispensation. And, you know, we have -- a lot of our folks are already staying away from church because of their fears.

JIMENEZ: Yeah. And how would you characterize the level of fear there over these immigration raids in your community? I mean, have -- have you been able to see it in attendance numbers?

ANDREWS: Yes, it has been reflected in attendance. I would tell you anecdotally that we've seen probably a 50% drop in mass attendance of our Spanish language masses in our diocese. In some places, it's more than that.

JIMENEZ: Have you heard or, I guess, I should ask you this, that, you know, the church has been seen traditionally, some would say, as a sanctuary, a place where everyone is welcome. Is there anything you would say to elected officials about the immigration raids happening at churches that you don't quite think they're understanding?

ANDREWS: Well, I would say, you just said it well yourself, that church is traditionally a place where you go for spiritual support and as a safe haven, and it's where you'd want to be at a time like this when there's all this fear.

But if there's no recognition by enforcement that those places are protected spaces, which is what they've always been seen as prior to this year, then, you know, you take that away from folks and you take away that refuge that they might have for themselves and for their families.

And so, I would say, you know, to those who are making policy, if we could again respect those protected spaces, I think it would be probably the just thing.

JIMENEZ: John Andrews, really appreciate you taking the time. Thanks for being here.

ANDREWS: Sure. Thanks for having me. Of course.

JIMENEZ: All right. Some Democrats are going after how these immigration raids are conducted. For example, California Senator Alex Padilla and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker introducing the VISIBLE Act, which would ban immigration officers from wearing masks except in covert operations. It would require them to display identification, including their agency and badge number, and establish a discipline process within DHS for any violations. Trump's response?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, they wouldn't, uh, be saying that if they didn't hate our country, and they obviously do. These officers are doing a tremendous job. They're great patriots.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: All right, let's talk about this with Brad Todd, CNN political commentator and Republican strategist, and Adrienne Elrod, Democratic strategist and former senior spokesperson for Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. Good to see you both.

Um, Adrienne, I'm going start with you because that bill, it targets what these agents wear at raids, but it doesn't stop the raids. Is this the right strategy for Democrats here?

ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR SPOKESPERSON FOR THE HARRIS-WALZ PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: No, it's certainly -- I mean, it's the right strategy to push back on this very unpopular policy that Trump is trying to enact.

Look, here's the bottom line: Donald Trump ran on trying to get the worst, the most violent offenders out of the country, illegal immigrants who are committing crimes on the streets. He did not run on deporting grandmothers who had been here for 50 years, nannies who have -- are taking care of children, brothers and sisters going into churches and trying to round up people.

This is happening because he's not meeting his quotas and that the administration is very focused right now on trying to get his numbers up. So, they are doing, you know, crazy things that is not what he ultimately ran on. It is becoming very, very unpopular because it's affecting people in their communities across the country.

So, you see Senator Padilla and Senator Booker pushing back in the right way. They are exposing the fact that you have a lot of ICE agents that are going in, essentially undercover, wearing these masks for no reason. I mean, COVID is over. They're not wearing masks to, like, protect themselves and their health or doing it because they don't want to be on camera, they don't want to be caught.

[23:34:58]

So, I think it's smart that Democrats are pushing back against this. And the more and more that the American people see what's happening, and they actually feel this in their communities, these inhumane acts, the less popular it becomes.

JIMENEZ: And Brad, you know, on that front, the federal government is saying, you know, attacks on immigration agents are up 700%. You know, we need this to protect them.

But I actually want to ask you about a little bit of what our last guest said because they're saying mass is no longer required for people in the diocese of San Bernardino over fears of immigration officers.

You know, going after the worst of the worst, as we heard million times on the campaign trail, is one thing. But when agents are arresting people in church parking lots, I mean, are these raids going too far? I guess that's my question for you.

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, first off, I'm a First Amendment absolutist. I think that the government should not be able to pass laws that infringe the free exercise of religion. I want to give pretty wide margins on that. So, I want to be very concerned about that.

The administration's guidance on this says that it's a discretionary basis and that it should be made with a lot of common sense. That's not a lot different than what Alejandro Mayorkas, President Biden's head of Homeland Security, said. He allowed agents to make arrests at sensitive places like places of worship, provided they had cleared it with their superiors on a case-by-case basis.

There's a case pending in the Fourth Circuit right now on whether the government can do this. There's a preliminary injunction granted on behalf of some churches who felt like their free association rights were at risk.

But even in that preliminary injunction, the judge said that there could be a warrant. There could be a time when a dangerous person was in a sensitive place like a church, and that's not a place of refuge.

I certainly want churches to be welcoming the stranger and not ask that question of who gets to come in the door. But I think we have to -- the executive branch does have a wide latitude to enforce immigration laws through Article Two, as proven.

JIMENEZ: And Brad, I just want follow up on a different topic because President Trump is threatening new levies of tariffs on several countries today, including possible 50% tariff on Brazil, unless charges against ex-president Jair Bolsonaro that he faced for allegedly orchestrating a coup are dropped.

But I just want you to listen about what President Trump said just this year about meddling in the affairs of other countries.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: In recent years, far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it's our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy to dispense justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: I mean, is that not what Trump is doing now with this tariff demand or whatever with Brazil?

TODD: He's very sensitive to leaders of countries being investigated on political grounds. And that's what he feels. Jair Bolsonaro was one of his allies and friends. I'm sure that's what he feels has been at the root of his prosecution.

I think in the end, he's working for leverage in all these tariff negotiations. He's trying to put as many items on the table so he has as many levers to pull to reduce the barriers which foreign countries have to our products, American products.

JIMENEZ: Adrienne, do you see it that way?

ELROD: Look, here's how I see it. I see that his tariff strategy has been completely botched from the very beginning. He has gone out and said that he's going to impose all these major tariffs, then he backed off, which is why the term taco has become such a household name, where people are just not taking him seriously, the markets are not taking him seriously, and that means a lot of foreign leaders are not taking him seriously.

JIMENEZ: Does that mean the political risk sort of wears off? Just -- you know, if people aren't taking him seriously and the markets aren't going up and down and we keep seeing delays, you know, if Democrats are out saying, hey, his tariff strategy isn't working, but it hasn't really, I guess, fully come together --

(CROSSTALK)

ELROD: -- exactly.

JIMENEZ: -- is there -- is there a risk in that?

ELROD: Yeah, sure, there's a risk. At a certain point, you don't have credibility. You don't have credibility with foreign leaders, from countries that he says he's negotiating tariffs with. You also don't have credibility with the American people. You don't have credibility with CEOs who, you know, whose stock are helping to guide the markets and in determining whether or not this is actually an effective strategy. At a certain point, it simply doesn't work.

So, if Donald Trump actually wants to have any sort of legs in his strategy, he's got to at least put his money where his mouth is, and I think, you know, hold to whatever negotiating power he says instead of continuing to backtrack, which is what we've seen so far.

TODD: You know, Omar, there are countries that are responding. And I'm watching for Monday that European Union is going to have to decide if it's going to keep its paws on its own tariffs. I think they take him seriously.

JIMENEZ: Brad, Adrienne, I got to leave it there. Thank you both for being here.

ELROD: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: All right, still ahead, Zohran Mamdani's win in New York emboldening his allies, who are now threatening to primary several House Democrats, including Leader Hakeem Jeffries. My next guest knows a little something about division in the Democratic Party. Former Congressman Dean Phillips is standing by tonight with his perspective. Plus, what about Elon Musk's plans for a third party? He might be interested in joining Musk. I'm going to talk about it with him next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: The political earthquake that shook New York City when Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor could have an aftershock next year in the midterms. That's because Mamdani allies are emboldened by the shock victory last month, and they're talking about launching primary campaigns against bigger fish. On that list, New York representatives Jerry Nadler, Ritchie Torres, Dan Goldman, Yvette Clarke, and even House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Mamdani declined to comment, but his allies are blasting Jeffries leadership. The co-chair of New York's Democratic Socialist of America saying Jeffries -- quote -- "seems like he's the one picking the fight with the left, and I think he should focus on fighting the right."

Jeffries hit back, calling Mamdani allies -- quote -- "team gentrification." Last hour on CNN, Congressman Ritchie responded, too.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RITCHIE TORRES (D-NY): I think it's fair to say that my colleagues in the New York Congressional Delegation and I do not care about the Democratic Socialist of America.

[23:44:59]

We're focused on defeating congressional Republicans in the midterms, in making Hakeem Jeffries the speaker of the House, and reversing the catastrophic consequences of the Republican reconciliation bill. We could care less about Mickey Mouse's primary challenges.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: And my next guest believes Mamdani could cause Democrats to lose the midterms. Democrat and former Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips joins me now. So, congressman, all right, look, there is a ton of dissatisfaction within the Democratic Party, specifically targeted toward leadership. Polls have shown that. But do you think it's time for some of the incumbents to face primary challenges in the ways that some of Mamdani's allies have pushed?

DEAN PHILLIPS, FORMER MINNESOTA REPRESENTATIVE: Well, Omar, I do agree with many of my younger colleagues who believe that we have too many members of both Congress and around the country who have been sitting in seats for too long. And as a Democrat, I believe strongly that we should have turnover. We should open opportunities for the best and brightest Americans who wish to serve. So, I do think some should not be primary necessarily, but should find it in themselves to step aside and make space for others. But Mamdani, as you have referenced just moments ago, is a grave threat to Democrats around the country. He could be the mayor of New York. I think that would be detrimental for the party. Anyone who talks about seizing the means of production or opening government-run grocery stores is at great odds with most of the country.

And I think Ritchie Torres, Hakeem Jeffries, Dan Goldman, they're spot on. If you want to be a socialist or a Democratic socialist, then they should start a party. But for Democrats, it's going to be a grave consequence in '26 and I think beyond.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, we're talking New York City here. Obviously, you know, it has national implications based on, I guess, the type of Democrat that was -- that won this primary. But why do believe he's a threat, per se, to -- to wider Democratic chances in the midterms?

PHILLIPS: Well, Omar, if Democrats would just put up normal candidates right now, it'd be the best strategy imaginable. But when Democrats elevate people like Mamdani -- and look at him. I do not know him. I can't -- I'm not going to disparage him personally, but I can tell you, based on what I've read about his positions, his platform, you know, it's nonsensical to believe that America is looking for Democratic socialists around the country.

In urban America, in some cases, they may succeed. In my home city of Minneapolis, as you well know, the city council has moved far to the left, and that is creating challenges for Democrats and both parties.

Omar, the real issue here is both parties are seeing the rise of the extremes, leaving most Americans, including myself, center-right, center-left Americans, wondering what has happened. And I think that's why we are seeing bubbling interest and a grand appetite for competition, which I think is long overdue.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, one of the things that -- I guess one of the questions here is the current DNC chair, Ken Martin, fellow Minnesotan, used you as an example in saying the party is a big tent. They can welcome people from different ideological, geographic perspectives. I think he used the example of you couldn't win a race in Ilhan Omar's district and she couldn't win a race in yours. Is there room for you and Mamdani in the Democratic Party?

PHILLIPS: You know, I think it's a fine question. I think it's one that many Republicans have been asking about, whether there's room for traditional conservatives in a party now led by mega Republicans like Donald Trump.

The answer, ultimately, I think is no. You know, we do share many of the same values. In fact, most Americans share a lot of the same values. But as a political party, yes, you want diversity, you want some differences of opinion, perspective, life story, politics and experience, but when you have socialists, when you have socialists in the Democratic Party, I don't know how anybody could argue that that would be beneficial for the party or for the country. Therein lies the great challenge. Same thing on the right, Omar, is MAGA the future of the Republican Party? If it is, there is going to be a new, grand, successful third party in America because the overwhelming majority of Americans want neither far left or far right politics. They want decency. They want common sense, competency, and cooperation. And no party right now is elevating candidates who represent those ideals.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, you mentioned third party. Elon Musk says he's launching a third party, the America Party. I know you've been an outspoken proponent of the third party as we just talked -- as we just heard there a little bit.

But, I mean, would you meet with Musk and help him create one under -- under the premise that you just laid out, that neither side is getting done what I want to get done or what we think should get done, but maybe Musk is the person to help me do it?

[23:49:57]

PHILLIPS: Well, first, I think most would make the same case I will, Omar, that Elon Musk is probably not the right face for any new party. He's very polarizing. He has alienated the left and the right. But he is the wealthiest man in the world. He has the largest platform in the world.

And there are, by the way, other parties. Andrew Yang, a good friend of mine, with the Forward Party, already exists. That is a potential opportunity for our country to start supporting, elevating, and platforming candidates who, I think, represent the very ideals I just described.

I was engaged a little bit with Elon during my presidential primary campaign. And I'll speak with anybody, and I am speaking with a lot of people right now, Omar.

(CROSSTALK)

JIMENEZ: So, you would agree with him if he asks right now and said, hey, let's meet and talk about this?

PHILLIPS: I would -- just as I did in Congress and in my entire professional life, I meet with just about anybody who's willing to discuss what I think is important. Do I agree with all of his positions? Absolutely not. Would he agree with all of mine? Absolutely not.

But I do think the country will be in very dire straits if we don't lower the barriers to entry for other politicians, for other parties, and for common sense Americans who want to participate.

That's why so many are now declaring themselves independents. But there is no independent party of significance yet in America. I think that time is coming, and I think the nonsense on the far left and the far right may actually be a great benefit because it is pushing together the broad swath of Americans who are sick and tired of this nonsense. So, yes, I'll meet with just about anybody. I already have and I will continue to because the time has come.

JIMENEZ: Dean Phillips, appreciate you being here. Thank you.

PHILLIPS: Any time. Thanks, Omar.

JIMENEZ: All right. Still ahead, speaking of Elon Musk, another problem for Musk tonight. The CEO of his ex-platform stepping down just a day after his Grok A.I. chatbot went -- we'll call it berserk. So, what happened? Our Sara Fischer has the scoop next. There she is.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Two years on the job and tonight, the CEO of Elon Musk's X is heading for the exits. Linda Yaccarino made a lengthy announcement on the platform where she thanked Musk and the X team. Musk's response? Quick one-liner. Thank you for your contributions. Period.

Yaccarino's tenure was marked by declining user traffic, struggling ad sales at points, and a whole lot of controversy. The latest scandal, Musk's A.I. chatbot known as Grok posting a flurry of false antisemitic tropes.

Here's just one example. A user asked, who's controlling the government? And Grok applied, a million-dollar question. Based on patterns in media, finance, and politics, one group's overrepresented way beyond their 2% population share.

The chatbot also called itself MechaHitler and produced violent rape narratives. Musk explained what's going on, writing, Grok was too compliant to user prompts. Too eager to please and be manipulated, essentially. That is being addressed.

Joining me now, CNN media analyst and senior media reporter for Axios, Sara Fischer. So, Sara, a source is telling us that Yaccarino's exit wasn't necessarily a surprise given the advertising challenges. But do we know if her departure had anything to do with Grok?

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST, SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER FOR AXIOS: I know for a fact it did not have anything to do with Grok.

JIMENEZ: All right. That's why we got you.

FISCHER: And that this departure was something that was being considered long before this controversy. I mean, Linda faced a huge challenge. She is considered the face of the advertising community. Before she was the CEO of X, she ran the advertising business at NBC Universal for over a decade. That's a 10-billion-dollar business, Omar.

JIMENEZ: Yeah.

FISCHER: So, she had the credentials to come in and really lead, but it was hard to do under Musk's reign. Musk infamously came out right after Linda was hired and told the advertising community to go "F" themselves. That makes it really hard for someone like Linda Yaccarino to develop relationships with this community and to build up a marketplace.

She did everything that she could. She tried to invest as much as she could in the ad tech stack, instead building those relationships, building up the ad product.

But I think the big problem was twofold. One, Musk didn't care about the ad business. So, his product focus was not on building the ads business and making it brand safe for marketers. And then two, we talk about Grok. Grok is owned by xAI. xAI this year bought X.

Grok was not Linda's product, although she leveraged it. But she's now taking the heat, and she has been taking the heat for all the bad things that happened with that chatbot. And so, she was put in a pretty impossible position here, and that's why I don't think it's a surprise that she has stepped down today.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, one question here is, current X employee told CNN -- quote -- "There has been a lack of clarity internally and externally as well on what X is supposed to be." And I'm sure you saw that report that in June, the Threads mobile app hit 115 daily active users on mobile to access 132 million. But I guess the question is, what does Musk want X to be?

FISCHER: Great question. So, I've seen so many companies buy social platforms or buy media companies, and they do it because of customer acquisition for whatever their big product is.

Think about Amazon buying MGM, right? They're not trying to be a movie studio business. They're an e-commerce platform, but they want to sell prime subscriptions, and so getting movies in their platform helps.

I think when Elon Musk bought X, I do think he was invested in it as a standalone communications platform, which means that you have to invest in the product and the advertising-based product, the ad tech stack, all of those things.

[23:59:58]

And what I think he saw happen was building an ads business, when you don't care about brand safety and you don't like this community, is very hard. And building ancillary businesses, subscriptions, enterprise licensing, also very hard.

And so, what he did was he had xAI, his A.I. company, basically acquire X in an all stock deal. It sorts of, in my opinion, obfuscate some of these finances so that X itself does not have to be this very, you know, profitable company. I think he wants X for the data to power his A.I. I don't think he cares as much about this being a global social discourse platform like it historically has been.

JIMENEZ: Sara, this is why I love having you here. You laid everything out so perfectly. Sara Fischer, appreciate it as always. FISCHER: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: All right, everyone, that's it. That's where we're going to end it. Thanks for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" up next.