Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
National Guard Deployed In D.C. As Part Of Trump's Police Takeover; RJK Jr. Contradicts Law Enforcement On CDC Shooter's Motive; Trump Eyes His Vision Of History At The Smithsonian; Supreme Court Formally Asked To Overturn Landmark Same-Sex Marriage Ruling; White House To Host UFC Fight Night On July 4th. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired August 12, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
UNKNOWN: Wow.
UNKNOWN: I don't know how to feel.
UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE).
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: This is -- this is going to go viral.
(LAUGHTER)
I'm not going to say whether it's going to be a good viral or a bad viral.
UNKNOWN: I think it's good.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: Never question Scott Jennings.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: Scott Jennings, everyone, thank you all so much for being here. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media: X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Tonight, the National Guard deployed in D.C. now a tourist attraction? Is that what Trump had in mind? Plus, the Supreme Court is asked to overturn legalizing same-sex marriage. Will they really even consider taking up the case? And later, Trump puts his thumb on the history scale and tells the Smithsonian it's time for a change. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
All right, we were all wondering what, the day after Trump's decision to deploy the military to Washington D.C., what that would look like. Well, you know what, let me paint you a picture. Members of the National Guard deployed here in D.C. with armored vehicles actually lining the streets. Something you see every day. You don't see this either: Joggers just trotting along, running by guard members with the National Monument in the background. Or this: People actually posing for pictures with National Guard soldiers. As our Brian Todd saw during his reporting this evening, of course, it was quite a moment.
That's not really the reality, though, that we've used to see. It's now the reality we do see in the nation's capital after President Trump announced his crime crackdown and took over the city's police. Talking about 800 guard troops. They've been activated. Hundreds of federal agents like the FBI are also helping police on patrol.
The White House says it has been effective so far. Nearly two dozen people have been arrested on charges from homicide to driving under the influence to even fare evasion. Not knowing what you see with the National Guard or the FBI. Right? But it's happening.
And the mayor of DC, Muriel Bowser, she is warning that Trump could use this D.C. takeover as a kind of blueprint for other cities.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR MURIEL BOWSER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: He wants to send the message to cities that if he can get away with this --
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Uh-hmm.
BOWSER: -- in Los Angeles, if he can get away with this in D.C., he can get away with it in New York or Baltimore or Chicago or any other place where millions of people live, work, and are doing everything the right way. And it is a step in fascism when the federal government can bigfoot sovereign states.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Keyword state. Right? The District of Columbia versus other states. How might they handle it differently? Maybe that's one of the reasons that she is saying at the same time as all that, she's making it clear that she will work with the card she has been dealt.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOWSER: What I'm focused on is the federal surge and how to make the most of the additional officer support that we have. How we got here or what we think about the circumstances right now, we have more police, and we want to make sure we're using them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, Mayor Bowser's balancing act is kind of the same dilemma that many Democrats are facing themselves. I mean, do you -- on the one hand, do you call out what they see as a blatant power grab or do you risk alienating voters who think that any help on crime is a good thing? It's not an easy choice by any stretch.
We know that the data says that crime is down in Washington, D.C. In fact, way down, a 30-year low. But data does not run into you in the street. So, what do residents actually feel? Well, we've got some data on that, too. Because a poll from just late April says the number one issue facing Washington, D.C. is crime, violence or guns, although it is important to point out that that number is down from previous years. As for the second biggest issue right now, Trump or issues involving Trump. Those are the same thing in a way. Right?
So, I guess depending on who you ask, the problem is either crime or the person who just put himself in charge of stopping it. And, of course, he is the head of the executive branch of government whose role is to, of course, enforce the laws. Makes for a very complex situation, doesn't it?
And if you want to see how those two worlds actually collide, well, let's talk to the people who were here.
[23:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I think this is long overdue. I've been one of the National Guards in this area for years. I like it, I love it, I feel safe already.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): When you hear the president say this is the worst it has ever been, what do you think?
UNKNOWN: That's not true. I have seen worse. I would understand if things were going haywire or hectic. But there's no need for him to be doing what he's doing.
UNKNOWN: The police need help. They know what they're doing. They just need some more support and bigger numbers.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): The city keeps saying crime is down, but do you feel safe?
UNKNOWN: No, I don't think the crime is down. Crime is up.
UNKNOWN: NBC? You told a lie.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What you feel versus with the data. You see the issue. My next guest always has the inside scoop on the administration. Marc Caputo, senior politics reporter for Axios. Marc, good to see you. I mean, Trump has been hosting. He has been complaining. He has been talking about crime and homelessness, particularly the nation's capital, ever since he took office, not just this time but before. But why is now the moment that made him take this action?
MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: Because a guy named Big Ball has got his ass beat by a bunch of kids who were carjacking or harassing or doing some criminal activity with his girlfriend. There are pictures of it.
COATES: Hmm.
CAPUTO: It hits social media. Fox and other conservative media really ran with this and discussed the Washington, D.C. crime problem. And, as your report points out, there's a lot of that problem going around. And I think on Friday night or on Saturday morning, I am told, Donald Trump, after seeing a report on Fox about the statistics of crime or the numbers of crime or whatever the graphic was that was on his television screen, just said, you know, this is sort of the last straw, we got to do something. And so, they scrambled to do something. This is what something looks like.
COATES: Well, this something is meeting the reality that we're in the district. This is not what he could do per se in other states. But we do know, of course, although there have been many efforts to make D.C. a state, it is not one. And your sources tell you that the president actually likes the D.C. mayor, Muriel Bowser, and an advisor to her says that she actually --
CAPUTO: Right.
COATES: -- have a good personal working relationship. How is that shaping the way she has to navigate this kind of minefield?
CAPUTO: I don't really know Mayor Bowser, but in observing the way she's dealing with Trump, it's sort of a master class in how to manage a volatile compound without it sort of exploding on you, and Bowser has done that so far. She understands that, and the clip you just played exemplifies this, that fighting Trump on things like this just gets him to fight more.
And since she has sort of been handed a lemon, so to speak, in these intensified police presence, she is just going to make lemonade. So, she's like, okay, great, you want to send more troops here and more law enforcement, we're going to find a way to deal with that because, as she points out, as (INAUDIBLE) points out, there are a number of people who think crime is a problem and they don't mind seeing it.
COATES: Let's talk about the lemonade that they might sell in one Washington commander's stadium because that is really, for a lot of people, the elephant in the room as to why one might be inclined to placate because there is this huge opportunity in Washington, D.C. to have the commander's stadium be here.
You're reporting that Bowser talked to Trump about crime when they met before his inauguration and talked about the new stadium deal for the commanders. Is this factoring in?
CAPUTO: I would imagine so. When he was going to be sworn the second time during or during the transition, the second Trump transition, Mayor Bowser flew down to Mar-a-Lago, met with Trump. She has also met with him a number of times in the White House. And he has told her, we are told, or the told her at these times, look, if you need anything, just come to me and I'll try to help you, we're not always going to agree.
This was Trump in his sort of more reasonable state that a lot of people sort of encounter when you meet him privately, much more kind of a friendly host. You see him up at some of these rallies or in some of his speeches. He's a lot scarier. Sort of almost two different guys. But Mayor Bowser has a working relationship with that guy who sits in the Oval Office and makes those decisions and has made sure to work with him as best she can in a partnership with him.
What's sort of interesting about the press conference that Donald Trump had yesterday, this was a press conference to talk about how he was going to militarize law enforcement --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
CAPUTO: -- in Washington, D.C., he didn't trash her by name, he didn't trash her at all. In fact, he trashed the city council, the city commissioners. I think it's a council. And he then started talking about Los Angeles and Illinois but really didn't talk about the mayor.
[23:10:00]
It speaks to the working relationship the two of them have. But yes, Donald Trump would love to see a stadium. He's a guy who loves sports. He was a sports team owner for a period of time. And this is a plan or a dream of the mayor as well.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
CAPUTO: And this is something to work with the president on, and she's doing that.
COATES: Difficult high wire act. Marc Caputo, thank you so much.
CAPUTO: Thank you.
COATES: I've got two political commentators here from CNN, Xochitl Hinojosa and Shermichael Singleton. They join me now. Okay, let's just -- let's kind of cut right to the chase in this because there is a delicate balance here. Obviously, this is the District of Columbia. So, she's not like the governor of a different state where she can push back because it's the district in the same way. On the other hand, this order is only in effect for 30 days before he's got to go to Congress. Whether he does that or not, I do not know.
But the issue of crime, Xochitl, Democrats can't forget that people have a feeling about crime and they want to feel safer even when the data says something different. Is this going to be a feather in the cap for Trump?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think the Democrats do have to start speaking to people and say that no amount of crime is acceptable.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
HINOJOSA: And I think that one of Mayor Bowser's missteps here is that when Donald Trump started talking about potentially takeover of the city, how we need to go ahead and bring violent crime down, et cetera, she should have asked Donald Trump for federal resources, she should have asked for an increase in, for example, law enforcement resources from the FBI, potentially from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office. More prosecutors prosecute cases --
COATES: But wait, I was getting a conversation. Excuse me, getting a conversation. He did mention something about -- it was kind of off the cuff when he said, I was told they wanted more police officers, and I asked how many you had, and he named over 3,000, and thought that's an astronomical figure, a number to even want more. It was kind of like Oliver never before as a boy wanted more moment, but that was the reality.
HINOJOSA: Yeah. And, I mean, I think that Mayor Bowser should have come out and should have said, you know what? I'm happy to do a press conference with you, President Trump, and we can announce this together, and you can have -- give us more resources, including ATF agents, et cetera. Instead, the National Guard was forced on her.
And the problem here is that if they're here for 30 days, we all know that violent crime in D.C. and all across the country goes up in summer months, we're going to see violent crime going down this year.
COATES: Hmm.
HINOJOSA: But next year, what happens next year when violent crime goes up again in the summer? Is the National Guard going to come in? What are they going to do? They're going to be on our streets. This is every summer thing. Are they going to be in Democratic cities in the summers?
So, I think that mayors really have to think about what federal resources will be beneficial to you, embrace the federal resources, ask Trump for help whenever you need the help, and you will likely get something instead of having the National Guard force.
COATES: You know, I thought you were going make a different point when you talking about summer months and crime going down because there is a world where, because of that very fact, the crime rate goes down and people attribute it to the National Guard's presence and then say, aha, they need to stay.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: New York --
COATES: Yeah.
SINGLETON: New York, for an example, subway system.
COATES: So, if that happens, then what? This is a -- this is a prolonged protracted every day?
SINGLETON: Look, obviously, cities need more resources for law enforcement. But -- but I would say a lot of this stems from how law enforcement was demonized, I would argue, from some, not all Democrats because there are some Democrats who are certainly pro-law enforcement, but I would argue that a lot of very vocal Democrats are not.
And as a result of that, you see many police officers leaving their jobs, going into private security, going to do other things. And what has been the ultimate result, the end result? You had significant gaps and police departments struggling to recruit new officers. People don't want to do the jobs anymore. So --
COATES: But also -- excuse me, also in D.C., though, the numbers went down because of the reaction to January 6. There is part of that and, of course, the cost of living here. Go ahead.
SINGLETON: Sure. D.C. is expensive. But -- but broadly speaking, I'm making the case that it's just really, really difficult now to police heavily-populated areas. You're not just seeing that in the District of Columbia, you're seeing it all across the country.
So, I think what we have to figure out here, Laura, is how do you have more stringent tactics that don't violate people's rights. We want to be cognizant of that, of course, but you want to do so in a way that keeps people safe.
You saw in that piece that you just played, majority of the people there said, look, I don't feel safe. That's an issue if you're governing a city and you're trying to attract businesses. You want to bring and create more jobs. Well, those entities are going to look at your city and say, well, I don't know if I want to move an HQ there or move a division of our company there.
COATES: That's a great point. That's a great point in terms of the indefinite nature of it. Right? Because if you are thinking -- just the tariffs issue alone, people said, I cannot plan accordingly until I know how stable or how long term it's going to be. If this is the new status quo, it might have a different incentive or disincentive. Does this mean that it might be a longer period by design for the very reasons he's talking about?
[23:15:00]
HINOJOSA: I mean --
COATES: If you're a Democrat arguing this, of course.
HINOJOSA: Yeah. I mean, potentially, one thing that -- that I think I also find interesting is at the Department of Justice. One of the things that they do is they've entered consent decrees with many police departments in order to provide them training and to help police departments that were investigated before and that need the resources.
COATES: They pulled those back.
HINOJOSA: Another thing that they have done, which I think Trump should really reconsider, and the D.C. U.S. attorney actually mentioned this as well, is they have fired all of the D.C. prosecutors and FBI agents who worked on violent crime in D.C. She was complaining about -- U.S. attorney was complaining about I don't have resources anymore, I can't help anybody. The problem is that they're the ones who let them go. And so, I do think that federal government can be good and especially when it comes to law enforcement and the administration really needs to take a hard look at kind of the -- the -- the places where they have fired and let people go and figure out whether they need to rehire those positions.
COATES: Hmm.
SINGLETON: I think you do have to start there. But in terms of day to day policing, there is not enough. I mean, I have law enforcement in my family. My grandfather was a detective for many years. There's just not enough, Laura. And they're struggling to try to recruit.
So, the federal government certainly plays a role, to Xochitl's point, particularly with some of those higher criminal behaviors and activities. But for the day to day policing of keeping the community safe, you see law enforcement there that's friendly, you feel safe if you're walking to the grocery store, your kids are coming home from school. There are just not enough numbers.
COATES: There weren't the resources fully as a U.S. attorney where I was as well. But I'm old enough to remember that phrase. What was it? The dangerous words. I'm from the government, and I'm here to help. I think it was a Republican who said that.
(LAUGHTER)
Xochitl, Shermichael, thank you both.
Up next, 500 rounds fired. Five hundred during that shooting at the CDC. The gunman reportedly motivated by his anger at the COVID vaccine. We have the dramatic new details tonight and the response from RFK Jr., that he gave, that is raising some eyebrows next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: I come from a family that lost two of its members to political violence and it's always wrong. Part of my job is to make sure that we protect our employees and keep them safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaking out after a gunman opened fire at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta on Friday. Authorities are giving more information today, revealing nearly 500 rounds were fired during that shooting, where a police officer was killed.
And just to give you a sense, that is these many bullets. Five hundred. And about 200 of those rounds struck six of the CDC buildings on the campus. That's this many bullet holes in a federal building. Officials say that written documents show the gunman's discontent for COVID-19 vaccines. Now, what happened didn't just leave the nation and the CDC staffers terrified. The aftermath left them feeling dissatisfied, to say the least, after they seemed to address it only by adding it to the agenda of an already pre-scheduled meeting with the newly installed director.
And then what was said at the meeting, well, that failed to reassure some staffers. One of them saying, we were waiting for this all hands. For solidarity, comfort, information, and I'm near tears. Are there no leaders left? Another pointing out, leadership did not address the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation. Leaving another -- quote -- "Just totally numb."
And if they believe the misinformation informed his motive, well, then it begs the question of what needs to be done to stop and correct the misinformation. And to that, secretary said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENNEDY: I'd say that this -- we don't know enough about what the motive was of this individual. What we need to do at our agency is to make sure the public believes in the things that we're saying. And the way that we do that is by telling the truth. And what I'm trying to do at the agency is return it to gold standard science.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, epidemiologist and vaccine expert who spent 13 years at the CDC, Dr. Fiona Havers. Now, she resigned in the wake of RFK Jr.'s purging of the agency's Vaccine Advisory Committee in June.
Dr. Havers, welcome. I mean, you've heard from authorities. They believe that the alleged shooter was motivated by his distrust of vaccines. And that kind of distrust, you know, has been a political influx test for years. And even though the secretary described political violence as wrong, he didn't connect these dots. Why do you think that is?
DR. FIONA HAVERS, FORMER CDC VIRUS EXPERT: Well, I think there has been a complete failure of this administration to acknowledge that the inflammatory rhetoric around COVID vaccines and the attacks on CDC by RFK Jr. and others is directly related to this violence.
I think that for years, RFK Jr. and others have been calling CDC corrupt and spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. It was incredibly dangerous, as we saw on Friday. People believe this misinformation and this man carried out a violent attack on my former colleagues on Friday as a direct result of this.
COATES: You know, you're not saying something so different from what Dr. Jerome Adams had to say. He was a former member, as you remember, of the President Trump's COVID task force.
[23:24:58] And he was actually calling out what he called a tepid response from RFK Jr. And he said -- quote -- "His inflammatory rhetoric in the past have actually contributed to a lot of what's been going on."
So, I wonder if you can address how does one correct that if he is responsible in part for the rhetoric. I'm not talking about the direct shooting, I know that somebody else has committed that act, but how do you change it to keep public health officials safe?
HAVERS: I think there needs to be an -- I mean, he needs to, first of all, stop spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines and stop talking about how CDC had government overreach during the pandemic. He said in that interview yesterday, two days after a shooting at CDC, immediately after talking about political violence, he's continuing to say these things without acknowledging that this rhetoric contributed to -- potentially contributed to this -- this violent attack.
And I think he needs to, first of all, stop spreading misinformation, take some responsibility for what happened, and to have a -- and I think there needs to be an acknowledgement by the administration that federal civil servants should not have lives endangered for the work that they do and that CDC -- people working at CDC are dedicated public health officials and they are not to be blamed for all of the things that -- that for years this misinformation has been spread about them.
COATES: It is an important point. I mean, at one point, the CDC director told staffers in an internal video, science and public health should never be under attack. But again, those are words compared to the onslaught and the, you know, monumental amount of information that has been spread to try to undercut that, and it's got to be addressed.
But let me just ask you about this because as much as we're talking about the actual shooting, another point that Dr. Adams actually warned was that people are going to die. Why? He said because of the decision to cut $500 million in funding for the mRNA vaccine research. Is this going to mean that we have setbacks and people could possibly die?
HAVERS: Definitely. I mean, the mRNA technology is incredibly valuable. It was what enabled us to get a COVID-19 vaccine within a year of discovering this novel virus. It has saved millions of lives. They have safe and effective vaccines that are incredibly flexible and actually can respond if other novel viruses come forth.
So, by yanking funding for mRNA vaccine research, it puts the U.S. in danger if there's another pandemic, it shoots us in the foot in terms of vaccine innovation and takes away one of the most valuable tools we have right now for combating viruses that we currently have.
COATES: Dr. Havers, what are you hearing from your colleagues at the CDC? How are they feeling about not only what happened at that shooting, but the response?
HAVERS: I mean, I think that they're feeling abandoned by this administration. I think there's a lot of anger that they were put in this position. I think -- and I think that there are -- many of them are really traumatize and it's hard for them to imagine going back on campus after this occurred.
And it's really demoralizing to think about how they have to continue to do their jobs in this environment with the complete lack of leadership from this administration and an inadequate response, and an administration that continues to undercut and undermine them.
COATES: Dr. Havers, thank you.
HAVERS: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, the president orders a review of the Smithsonian this time. Why? Well, to make sure that the museum fit his version of history. What vision is that exactly? I'll ask -- I'll ask presidential historian Douglas Brinkley next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, in less than nine months, a lot of institutions have come under the dirty microscope: Universities, public broadcasting, the Kennedy Center. Well, tonight, it's the Smithsonian's turn, even after outcries that the Smithsonian changed the language on placards about Trump's impeachments, where they removed language about Trump making -- quote -- "false statements about the 2020 election," and that he -- quote -- "encouraged the January 6th riots." The Smithsonian is denying it was forced to do all those things.
But the White House is now ordering a full review of their exhibits and their materials to -- quote -- here's the reason they give -- "to ensure alignment with the president's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions."
Let's unpack what that means with presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, who also served on the boards of both the Library of Congress and the National Archives. My mind goes right to this point about ensuring alignment to celebrate American exceptionalism. How do you think Trump is trying to define that?
DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, he's very excited, President Trump, about America 250. It's going to happen on his watch. And as we know, he has been interested in trying to shape the narrative. So, it's kind of a Trump festival next summer. He's doing it with his garden of heroes that he's choosing to build in a statuary way at some great choices he made.
[23:35:02]
It's an odd way they're doing it. But now, he has been aiming at all of our great institutions. And I think that the point that's missed by the Trump administration, these are pros at the Smithsonian Institute. They know what they're doing. These are great historians, people like Lonnie Bunch. The letter that the White House sent, Lonnie went to Howard University and worked his way up, and has been opening the narrative to include Black history and LGBTQ history, gender history.
And I understand those aren't issues that perhaps are attracted to the MAGA crowd, but you've got to be careful not to try to dumb down history in a way that's rewriting textbooks for your own benefit. And so, a red flag for me was when, obviously, like Andrew Johnson, you can't talk about his presidency without impeachment. We can't talk about Nixon without Watergate.
COATES: Right.
BRINKLEY: Donald Trump's first term, you got Dublin. And so, the Smithsonian should be covering it and it shouldn't be censored by anybody.
COATES: Well, that's the idea. I mean, the administration is accusing the Smithsonian of promoting narratives that portray the United States as -- quote -- "harmful and oppressive." And now, argue that the purpose of the vetting is to portray the United States in a more positive light. That's not pure history, though. Right? No country can describe their own history as purely one way. Is this retelling, going to betray the truth?
BRINKLEY: I worry about it. I'm worried about President Trump when he, long ago now, went after Barack Obama, saying he wasn't born in America. That's not American exceptional, saying the president wasn't born in our country, creating a fake birth certificate. But if you do that, that's going to be part of the history record, and you're not going to look good because Barack Obama was born in the United States.
So, it's important for the Smithsonian to tell the truth the best they can. And in recent years, it's true. They've been looking more at the issue of slavery and injustice, women's rights.
Trump may want to kind of rectify it more, talking about military leaders and kind of old style, you know, war hero, Andrew Jackson, patriotism. But they got to be careful they don't go too far in that.
And don't harass people who've done a great job as curators, archivists, people working in Smithsonian. Cut them a break. These are great public servants, people helping teach American history. Modify but don't demolish.
COATES: I mean, look, the way I feel about it, Doug, is that it's not either, or, it's both and. All those things are parts of history.
BRINKLEY: Yeah.
COATES: You look to one building to give the full history and accounting of an entire nation, you're looking at the wrong block. Doug Brinkley, thank you so much.
BRINKLEY: Thank you. COATES: Still ahead tonight, she's back. Kim Davis, the county clerk who crusaded against same-sex marriage 10 years ago, now asking the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark ruling. Are they actually going to take up the case? Next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, do you remember that thing called precedent? You know, when the Supreme Court decides something and it's supposed to be the end of it, at least for quite some time? Well, it has only been 10 years since the Supreme Court essentially legalized same-sex marriage. And here we are with headlines suggesting that the Supreme Court may revisit this very issue.
Now, it's unclear whether the court will even take up the case. But yes, the Supreme Court has been formally asked to overturn the landmark decision in Obergefell versus Hodges. And you know who's doing the asking? A former county clerk in Kentucky named Kim Davis. Now, she and her name might sound familiar because she is the clerk who spent six days in jail, remember that? Calling the 2015 ruling for refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: The Supreme Court denied what you're saying.
KIM DAVIS, FORMER KENTUCKY COUNTY CLERK: We're not issuing marriage license today.
UNKNOWN: Based on what?
DAVIS: I would ask you all --
UNKNOWN: Why are you not issuing marriage licenses today?
DAVIS: Because I'm not --
UNKNOWN: Under what authority are you not issuing licenses?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: A lot has changed in the 10 years since the court's ruling. For one, public opinion on this very issue. Chief Justice Roberts warned in his dissent at the time -- quote -- "Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that is much more difficult to accept."
But what Roberts might not have anticipated is that 10 years later, nearly 70 percent of Americans now support gay marriage. Biden also signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, which requires states to honor established same-sex marriages in the event that Obergefell were overturned. And that was passed with bipartisan support in Congress.
But perhaps the most significant of changes in the last 10 years, talking about the Supreme Court, is who's actually on the Supreme Court now versus 10 years ago, because at least two of the justices that voted in favor of the decision, Ginsburg, Kennedy, well, they've now been replaced by Trump appointees, and some justices have since expressed an openness to revisiting precedent.
Joining me now is Kim Wehle. She's a former assistant U.S. attorney and a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a prolific author. And she joins us now because, listen, many people are thinking to themselves, I thought this was settled, especially within the last 10 years.
[23:45:03]
Are we really back here with this court might take up this issue?
KIM WEHLE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW: Yeah. Well, things have changed a lot in the past 10 years. Three of the justices that were in the majority in the Obergefell case that decided that gay marriage is a right, guaranteed under the Constitution, are no longer there.
We had three justices now in the majority who separately wrote dissents to that case. Right? We have Roberts, we have Alito, and we have Thomas. So, we know we have at least three votes to take this up. And you need four to grant cert. So, it's either Justice Kavanaugh or Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
And in addition, in the interim, Laura, we've had Dobbs, the case that overruled Roe vs. Wade, the right to abortion.
COATES: Unlike Dobbs, we don't have the protections codified into law that you had, for example, with other issues. Like, in terms of Obergefell, they got protections codified into the law. This is different.
WEHLE: Well, it's different. There is a federal law that -- that protects established marriages. So, even if the court takes us up, which I think there's a very strong chance they will, and even if they reverse that case, which I think there's a hundred percent chance, if they take the case, I think the right -- the constitutional right to gay marriage will be reversed.
COATES: Wait a second. You really think that this is a sure thing?
WEHLE: I do.
COATES: If they take it, it's gone?
WEHLE: I do.
COATES: Why are you so sure?
WEHLE: Because of Dobbs. For a number of reasons. Number one is the majorities. Now, their lens looking at constitutional rights that are not spelled out in the Constitution is the history and tradition test. The first country to recognize gay marriage by law was the Netherlands, and that was in the year 2000. So, if the court applies that lens, what they've been doing with Dobbs, with abortion, they've been doing it with the Second Amendment with gun rights.
This is their new test. It's not originalism. It's not textualism. It's we are going to look back to the timing of the Constitution and see, was this right something that Americans at the founding had and was protected? And I think it's -- there's no question that gay marriage was not something that was protected under the law --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
WEHLE: -- at the time of ratification of the original Constitution or the 14th Amendment. In addition, they just don't like substantive due process. They don't like this idea of recognizing rights that aren't spelled out in the Constitution, including marriage itself, by the way. Marriage itself is not.
COATES: But, you know, that strikes me, of course, and many people. Obviously, there are so many things that were not a part of the Constitution. I mean, neither of us would be sitting here today and we just had the Supreme Court look at what was in the Constitution at the time that happened. But the idea that this would have a domino effect seems quite clear. If that is the standard, then there is going to be a bevy of cases that will come before the court under that same proposition that could be overturned.
WEHLE: Well, what they're going to do is, I think, what they did in Dobbs, which is say it's for the states. And if you read the dissents in the Obergefell case, that was their argument. Listen, it shouldn't be up to us to do this. You go state by state. And I think at the time, 35 states did not recognize gay marriage.
So, you know, if this is reversed, marriages between same-sex couples would not all of a sudden be dissolved, but it would go back to the states and the state legislatures to decide whether it was legal or not on a state-by-state basis.
And we have a conservative court that is really leaning towards elevating free speech and freedom of religion over other constitutional rights. We've seen it in other contexts. And I think that could be the straw that breaks the camel's back when it comes to gay marriage in this court.
COATES: So, when you talk about if, Miss Umbrella, what is the likelihood that this court, as it's currently composed, wants this political heat?
WEHLE: Well, you know, they're doing all kinds of things politically when it comes to the Trump administration where they're, as you know, reversing preliminary injunctions --
COATES: Uh-hmm. WEHLE: -- on emergency -- on emergency basis with really pretty dramatic effects. Cases that date back 90 years. You know, firing -- Trump is firing officials who have protections as a matter of federal law without recognizing what Congress established.
The court is doing lots of radical things, frankly, and doesn't seem to feel the pressure from, you know, the moderates or the lefts of the country that this is not what people want to see. And when you look at the election results, there are many people that didn't vote for Donald Trump or didn't vote at all.
We're seeing, you know, the court green light in two cases. This DOGE, which is not even created by Congress. Right? It was an executive order agency. That's unprecedented. Elon Musk ran it. That's unprecedented. Having somebody who's a private party run an agency, we've never seen that.
[23:49:58]
They're supposed to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. So, from a constitutional standpoint, if you unpack what this court is doing, I don't think political pressure is something that they're really worried about, at least when it comes to someone other than Donald Trump or the far right.
COATES: How will they teach precedent in law school? A question I never thought they would ask. Kim Wehle, thank you so much.
WEHLE: Great to be with you.
COATES: Up next, remember this scene? Trump walking out to the ring at a UFC fight? Well, he may be about to walk that same walk again without ever having to leave the White House. I'll explain next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, from a Tesla showroom to American-made trucks and soon, an octagon cage fight.
[23:54:58]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANA WHITE, CEO, UFC: I'm flying out there at the end of this month. And I'm going to sit down and walk him through, you know, all the plans and the renderings, and we're going to start deciding what he wants and doesn't want. But yeah, it's definitely going to happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You heard that right. The entertainer in chief reportedly set to host the first ever UFC fight at the White House, the people's house, next 4th of July.
Here with me now, comedian Pete Dominick, the host of "Stand Up with Pete Dominick," and CNN contributor Cari Champion, host of "Naked Sports with Cari Champion." I'm glad to have my friends here with me tonight. I want to ask you first, Cari. This seems like it's pretty on brand for a man like Trump who has been a long time UFC fan.
CARI CHAMPION, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I know it is definitely on brand. But I just want to take two seconds to give Dana White, someone who I really consider a good guy in terms of how I've met him and know him over the years. He's a fair, straight shooter that all you can ask for. He posted something today that I think really encapsulates what we're talking about.
In 2005, he paid $2 million to be on Spike TV UFC, to be on spike TV. In 2025, he's getting paid $7.7 billion by Paramount. In 20 years, he has been able to take this relatively new sport and positioned it to be a part of the big three. And by big three, I mean baseball, basketball, and football. And for him, I say kudos to you. What better way to say the UFC is here if we don't celebrate on America's birthday?
COATES: I mean, that legitimize the fact that not only the number she gave, Pete, the fact that it's going to be done at the White House. But I want to ask you, if there's a celebrity matchup that might take place on this 4th of July experience, who's in it in your book?
PETE DOMINICK, COMEDIAN: Oh, Trump versus any woman, I think, would be great for sure. I mean --
COATES: Option two?
DOMINICK: -- are we just going -- are we just going celebrities?
COATES: No. Tell me anyone. I want to hear whatever.
DOMINICK: Uh, I mean, there's just so many people that we could pin up against each other. Most of them, I think, are on CNN. I want to watch -- I want to watch more.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Oh, God.
DOMINICK: Listen, first of all --
CHAMPION: Wait --
DOMINICK: -- I mean, I can't -- Cari is like I'm friends with Dana White. I know -- all I know about Dana White is that he smacked his wife on camera.
(LAUGHTER)
Let's never forget that. And now, they're bringing the UFC to the White House? This is like the white trashification of the White House. What's next? A monster truck rally on the South Lawn, a wet t-shirt contest in the East Room, lawnmower races, turkey shoot, pig contest? This is gross and tacky and probably illegal. And I hate it.
COATES: But Cari says, why not on this point?
CHAMPION: Why not?
COATES: Oh, that was your point, why not? She's like, why not? What are you saying about what Pete is saying? Is this really gross, is he saying?
CHAMPION: I don't think it's gross. This is what I think is happening. You said it earlier. He's the entertainment -- he's the entertainer in chief. He knows exactly what he's doing. It's a part of the fabric.
And I'll tell you this. You mentioned all those things about Dana White. You are not wrong. But it's a yes and. We've learned to separate the art from the artist, and we have to be able to say certain things.
But in reality, you're missing the big fight. She asked who? And, of course, it's got to be Elon Musk. No?
COATES: Hmm.
CHAMPION: You don't want to see Elon Musk? I mean, how dare there was a whole class of mean girls fight when they were going back and forth over social media?
DOMINICK: Yeah.
CHAMPION: Don't we want to see that on the White House lawn or no?
COATES: You know, I should post my full interview with Dana White because it was a hell of an interview, I must say so myself, about this, about his -- the UFC and its interplay with politics because it was a really interesting conversation, Pete.
But let me ask you the other thing because the late-night host, Jimmy Kimmel, is doing what some others have done. He revealed he got Italian citizenship. He is keeping it open in case he needs to escape, apparently, to second term of Trump's administration. We saw that -- We had Ellen DeGeneres staying in England. We have Rosie O'Donnell moving to Ireland. Is this the new trend? Is he serious?
DOMINICK: Yeah. I mean, if they're going to be targeted by the president of the United States for any number of reasons, which Jimmy Kimmel has already been targeted, then yeah. I mean, a lot of people are just -- don't love this idea that if you're rich and you're a celebrity, you can leave. And a lot of people say good riddance, you should go.
But I think it's different if you're being targeted by the president of the United States who has got the full power of the military and police that he's putting in America's streets behind them.
So, I mean, Rosie O'Donnell legitimately is under threat. These people get threatened all the time because Trump targets them, and he threatens them. So, it's really dangerous.
You know, Cari talks about Dana White being a good guy, which I obviously disagree with, but --
(LAUGHTER)
-- Jimmy Kimmel is a really great guy. Jimmy Kimmel is a really brave and courageous guy for taking on President Trump, something Dana White would never do.
COATES: Cari --
[00:00:00]
DOMINICK: And I think he definitely have to be worried about him and his family's security, for sure.
COATES: What's your point, Cari?
CHAMPION: Pete, I'll let you run with the good guy thing. I'm not saying you're going to invite him home to dinner and he's not my best friend. I'm saying he's someone that I've gotten to know and there are some things that I do appreciate. I can have nuance here. Please allow me.
However, with that being said, we're talking about Jimmy Kimmel, he's not the only one having that conversation. I have friends with a go- bag trying to get to Toronto as we speak.
(LAUGHTER)
Like this is becoming more and more. This is not unusual. I can call down the street on my right, head at the Caribbean next. It's happening. Trust me.
COATES: The Toronto go bag. I want to know what's in it. I'm just saying I'm now I'm curious about this. Pete, Cari, love you both. You both have nuance. Thank you. And thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
