Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Judge Rules Against Trump As Chicago Braces For Troops; Epstein Accusers Go To Congress As Some Files Released; Xi Flexes Military Force Alongside Putin And Kim Jong-un; An A.I.-Driven School Looks To Disrupt Education. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 02, 2025 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: -- p.m. right here on CNN. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Tonight, colorful language is back. Trump calls Chicago a hellhole and says the city is next on his crackdown list even as a judge rules the president broke the law by sending troops to Los Angeles. Well, the city's mayor, Karen Bass, standing by live to react to all of it.

Plus, some Epstein files are released as accusers prepare for a major press event. And tonight, we have a preview of what they're going to say. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett joins me to reveal what she heard from them just today.

And what Xi Jinping just said about his country during a massive military parade with fellow strongmen Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un.

Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, first, it was Los Angeles. Then Washington, D.C. Now, President Trump said it's only a matter of time before he sends his military into Chicago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, we're going in. I didn't say when we're going in. When you lose -- look, I have an obligation. This isn't a political thing. I have an obligation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: No, you didn't say when. Did you? You said, we're going in. But not when. There's no timeline. No, we also don't have support for Chicago's leaders. As for Trump justification, well, he says violence in the city speaks for itself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Chicago is very interesting because I watched Pritzker get up and say about -- we don't need help, we're safe. But two weeks ago, they had six people murdered -- murdered, and they had 24 people hit by bullets. Last week, as you know, it was seven people -- 24 people hit and seven people died. Chicago is a hellhole right now. If the governor of Illinois would call up, call me up, I would love to do it. Now, we're going to do it, anyway. We have the right to do it because I have an obligation to protect this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: If he called you up, you'd love to do what? Have a conversation about it? Well, if you think calling America's third largest city a hellhole might get a reaction, you'd be right. And the biggest one came from the one he might get a call from, Governor JB Pritzker. He says Trump's remarks are unhinged. He points out that overall crime in Chicago is down, push to deploy troops would be illegal and a pure political stunt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. JB PRITZKER (D-IL): When did we become a country where it's okay for the U.S. president to insist on national television that a state should call him to beg for anything, especially something we don't want?

I can't live in a fantasy land where I pretend Trump is not tearing this country apart for personal greed and power. The president's absurd characterizations do not match what is happening on the ground here. He has no idea what he's talking about. There is no emergency that warrants deployment of troops. He is insulting the people of Chicago by calling our home a hellhole.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: There's a lot at play here, right? You've got politics, perceptions of crime, public safety. But looming over all of it, how far does Trump's authority actually go? Is there any legal path for what he plans to do? Now, we've seen the show of force right here in Washington, D.C. where federal law gives Trump a lot of power over local law enforcement. It is the district, after all.

But outside of the district, a different story. Look at Los Angeles. A federal judge today ruled that Trump's use of the military in L.A. just this past summer, that it broke the law. Why? By having troops carry out law enforcement activities.

And Judge Charles Breyer delivered a warning that cuts to the heart of Trump's plan. Quote -- "President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into federal service in other cities across the country, thus creating a national police force with the president as its chief."

[23:05:03]

Now, Judge Breyer's ruling limits troops in California to guarding federal property. That means they can't make arrests or conduct searches or use crowd control. And it goes into effect 10 days from now, from bound to appeal. And he claims without the National Guard, L.A. would have lost the 2028 Olympics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If I didn't send the National Guard into Los Angeles, you wouldn't -- I would be making an announcement today. I'd be talking about Huntsville, and I'd simultaneously be saying, by the way, the Olympics is not coming to Los Angeles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, the mayor of L.A., Karen Bass. Mayor, thank you so much for joining us. I want to go right there for a second and what he is talking about because he is making claims that the Olympics would not be coming to L.A. but for his efforts. What is your reaction?

MAYOR KAREN BASS, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: I mean, it's just absurd. It would be one thing if he was exaggerating, but there's not one word of that. That's the truth because he claimed that he had quelled the protests on a Saturday, and the National Guard didn't even arrive until Sunday. And when they were here, they had one mission, and that was to guard a federal building. They were not involved in crowd control at all because they're not trained for that.

So, this is just a violation of longstanding federal law, Posse Comitatus. It says that the U.S. Military is not supposed to be used to deal with crime suppression, to deal with urban issues. And so, it's a betrayal of that law. Now, we've had three positive court decisions.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

BASS: The question is, will the president follow the law? Will he obey the court decisions? We'll see.

COATES: Well, an appeal is certainly coming. Are you confident that even in spite of those otherwise favorable rulings, that an appeals court will see it your way?

BASS: Well, I mean, I'm certainly hopeful, but what I can tell you is that we have a temporary restraining order that forbids the administration from racially profiling Latinos in Los Angeles and just indiscriminately chasing people that they don't know who they are, where there's no warrants and detaining them, running through Home Depot parking lots and car washes --

COATES: Hmm.

BASS: -- and other places where Latinos work. And they are violating that temporary restraining order. It's not to the magnitude before the TRO, but since the TRO has been in place, they are still racially profiling people and essentially hunting folks down in workplaces that is just completely inappropriate and according -- inappropriate and according to the courts is not legal.

COATES: Even without a TRO, you're well aware there is that Fourth Amendment that ought to protect against the idea of racial profiling. But I digress for a moment, mayor.

The President also seems to not be dumb with Los Angeles. He is hinting that he may send troops back to your city. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: And he's going to need us again because it's starting to form again. I see it. It's starting to form again. You know, we have to maintain. It's like maintenance on an airplane. You can buy it, but you have to maintain it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Mayor, is there any justification --

BASS: What?

COATES: -- for Trump to send the military or National Guard back to your city?

BASS: I have no idea what he is talking about. What is starting again? Well, actually there is something that's starting again and that is them chasing people down and detaining folks inappropriately without warrants, still being masked, still driving unmarked cars. So, if he wants to come here, he should come here and gather up the troops and bring them back to where they are.

But I really think that this is about trying to get the American public to normalize the intervention of the military --

COATES: Hmm.

BASS: -- in domestic situations like basic crime suppression, crime control. He uses different excuses for different cities. All of it, in my mind, is illegal and inappropriate. No one asked for it. So, you have to look at what is the real reason.

And then bringing the Olympics in, the Olympics is in 2028. This has absolutely nothing to do with that. And he has no authority to act in the manner in which he says.

COATES: So, what advice would you give to other cities that are seemingly on his list? Chicago seems to be one of them. Baltimore might be next as well, according to him. The District of Columbia, distinct in its standing as a district.

BASS: Well, it's very interesting, the cities that he chooses. But I will tell you that mayors are in communication with each other. We have spoken with each other.

[23:10:00]

And when I have spoken with Mayor Johnson, first of all, they absolutely know what to do in Chicago.

But I did give him the good news from Los Angeles, which is our city has stood together, stood strong. We had -- there hasn't been a crack. The city has not been divided. And I think that the administration might have thought that they were going to divide people here. But everybody is appalled by it. Even people who might agree with the policy are appalled by the tactics because it has done nothing, nothing positive for the city of Los Angeles.

COATES: Mayor Karen Bass, thank you for joining.

BASS: Thanks for having me on.

COATES: I've got some legal perspective on this dizzying day with Kim Wehle, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and author of the book "Pardon Power." The prolific professor joins me now. Kim, listen, the judge in this opinion is essentially saying that Trump is in effect trying to -- quote -- "creating a national police force." So, does this ruling actually legally stop from something?

KIM WEHLE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW, AUTHO: Not exactly. I don't think the scope of the injunction goes beyond the state of California. But he basically says, Donald Trump, you need to abide by the law in the state of California.

COATES: A suggestion that could lead to a Chicago change of events or no?

WEHLE: Well, it's unlikely that this is -- he will feel bound by this outside the state of California. And in this moment, there are still 300 National Guard troops in California. And the judge says, I'm not going to disturb those troops.

If you recall, Laura, this is the second time this incident has gone to this particular judge. The first time was under the Insurrection Act or an adjacent statute, whether there was cause to basically go in, which generally requires a rebellion or insurrection, something really serious, an emergency.

This one is under a different law, called the Posse Comitatus Act, that was enacted after the Civil War because there were concerns that Confederates would get back into the government, and then would use the military to thwart reconstruction. And it basically says you can't use military for civilian law enforcement. That's for local police.

And he goes through great detail about the factual record and how, you know, they were establishing perimeters. There was even a person that was detained. They were side by side, even it was unclear which were federal, which were local, and says this is a clear violation of the law and it applies here.

But I think the judge is probably sensitive to the fact that the Ninth Circuit the first time, uh, reversed them on the first case.

COATES: So, in California, the ruling, it blocks Trump from using the National Guard, again, in California, it is specific to them, for arrests and apprehensions, searches and seizures, security patrols, traffic control, even riot control. Would this have an impact on what the National Guard could do across the country?

WEHLE: Well, remember, in a case recently, just a few months ago, the Supreme Court held that federal judges have to just stay in their lane, within their particular jurisdiction, under that universal injunction.

COATES: Before the injunctions, right? Everyone was complaining about this one judge in this jurisdiction could buy the entire nation. That's changing.

WEHLE: Yes, that's changing. And the judge raises that question in this opinion and is acting very gingerly. You know, I think the big issue, which the judge identifies, is what's really to stop Donald Trump moving forward across the country.

COATES: Is there an answer?

WEHLE: You know, I don't think so, um, because this is a president who has just blown through many legal boundaries. He's not really acting in a way that he feels sort of reticent because of the law. The rule of law is not functioning to slow him down.

So, we'll have to see what other judges will do and when this, I think, eventually goes to the Supreme Court. If the court is going to apply its very broad deferential standard for presidential power that it erected for the first time last summer in Trump versus United States, it created criminal immunity, it put presidents above the law if they're taking official acts when they commit crimes.

And the statute is really old and it's pretty vague. I think it's conceivable the court will say, listen, this is within its discretion, Congress has to come in and clean this up, it's not for us to do it.

COATES: Deference or a separation of powers. We'll have to see which actually wins the rules of the day. Kim Wehle, thank you so much.

WEHLE: Thank you.

COATES: Well, as you heard, the president says Chicago is next. Joining me now is a member of Chicago City Council, Democratic alderman Raymond Lopez. He supports more cooperation between Chicago and federal law enforcement. Alderman, welcome. You're not against the National Guard helping in Chicago.

[23:15:02]

Tell me how you think the National Guard might help Chicago deal with crime in your city.

RAYMOND LOPEZ, ALDERMAN, MEMBER OF CHICAGO CITY COUNCIL: Well, first off, thank you for having me. Let me just say Chicago is not the murder capital of the world. We all know that. It's a proven fact. But we are a city that needs help.

Just last week, I had two teenagers shot behind a high school in the city's Canaryville neighborhood. On my way to the studio today, I had an individual who was shot in the head in the back of the Yards community. I learned about it on my way here.

To say that we don't need help is not an accurate statement. We can absolutely use the federal resources from the National Guard to the FBI, ATF, DEA to help alleviate the pressure and strain on our Chicago Police Department who are dealing with thousands of calls that are going unanswered on a daily basis. We could use the federal assets to protect some of the city's assets like Magnificent Mile, like Buckingham Fountain, and like Navy Pier so that our officers don't have to babysit them, and they could actually go back into the communities and doing the job that we hired them to do.

We have to address safety. It shouldn't be this partisan to do it. And what I would hope is that while we have the president, the governor, the mayor, and everyone else in between pointing fingers and making this great performance for the past two weeks, that we remember that there are real life victims at play here who are caught in the crosshairs, not only of the gang bangers and drug dealers and human traffickers that are all throughout the city, but now of the politics of the day.

COATES: So, just so we're clear, the National Guard, if their vision is correct, it would be that they'd be monitoring sort of the more touristy attractions and then the Chicago Police Department would actually monitor different individual neighborhoods for patrol purposes for crime?

LOPEZ: That -- that would be my hope and suggestion to anyone who's listening, layers of government above me, because we do know that the National Guard does not have policing powers.

COATES: Right.

LOPEZ: We understand that completely. But they also have uniform presence. So, we could have them on Michigan Avenue, we could have them on the CTA stations where we are currently allowing officers to spend their eight-hour shift --

COATES: Yeah.

LOPEZ: -- babysitting these locations when they could actually be in the neighborhoods answering 911 calls.

COATES: You know, to that point, the patrol presence and the real presence of them here in Washington, D.C., the National Guard, as you know, has been here for weeks. There are some local businesses, some restaurants that say that they have seen a drop in the business. Magnificent Mile, some of the areas you're talking about, certainly chock full of businesses. Are you concerned at all that any deployment or presence would impact business owners in Chicago?

LOPEZ: Well, first off, let's be clear that Mayor Bowser has said that there was a significant and sizable drop in crime in her city, and that she actually has signed a letter today welcoming indefinite support by the federal government to keep Washington, D.C. residents safe. So, I think residents of Chicago would gladly take safety at this moment to help put the fears aside when we look at what's going on in our communities.

COATES: Hmm.

LOPEZ: Yes, we do know that. We understand that people are afraid, that they're nervous. But a lot of hat anxiety is coming from this mismatched communication going on between the federal, state, and local levels of government. We need to get in one room, hammer it out, figure it out, and start moving forward to protect the citizens of the city of Chicago.

COATES: So --

LOPEZ: You know, we should be able to do better than what we've been doing. We hear the governor and the mayor say --

COATES: Yeah.

LOPEZ: -- we have a decrease, we're going in the right direction. So, why don't we keep going? Why don't we take the president's offer and push beyond where our limits are right now? Because clearly, we've reached that impasse ---

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LOPEZ: -- that needs some outside help and intervention.

COATES: Alderman, why do you think the governor of your state and the mayor of your city in Chicago see it so differently than you? Why don't they welcome it? They have talked about pretty much the antithesis and thinking about the idea of police presence being detrimental, that the way to stop crime or to decrease crime that is already trending down in your city is not to have the military, but law enforcement instead. Why do they see it so differently than you?

LOPEZ: I believe in public safety, I believe in supporting our law enforcement, and I believe in ensuring that people who choose to do bad things are held accountable for their crimes.

COATES: They would say the same thing, though, right?

LOPEZ: My reelection and my future prospects -- I would not say that they believe the same thing. I don't believe that.

COATES: Okay.

LOPEZ: I believe we're on two very different tracks. And I will also add that because, as you mentioned in the previous segment, the politics of it. You know, my reelection, my existence politically does not hinge on me fighting Donald Trump. My existence in this moment is in defending the residents of my ward, defending the communities of the city of Chicago, and finding a path where criminals finally have fear in their eyes when they see people with badges.

That's my goal. That should be all of our goals because at the end of the day, we all want to be able to leave our house to go to work, send our kids off to school, sit on the porch in retirement without worrying that we're going to be the victims of the next carjacking, robbery or murder.

[23:20:01]

COATES: Well, we'll see what the end result will be. The president says it's in route or coming, no timeline. Alderman Raymond Lopez, thank you.

LOPEZ: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, had they moved the needle? Accusers appearing on Capitol Hill ahead of a major press event as the House Oversight Committee releases some of the files they got from the Department of Justice. But is there anything new in those files? And could a vote to release everything now be in jeopardy? One of the committee's most outspoken members, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, is in the studio with me tonight on that and more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Lawmakers are back on Capitol Hill after their month-long summer recess. They're facing a long to-do list. They did one thing, check out the list tonight, though, or maybe at least partially checked off that list.

[23:25:00]

The House Oversight Committee releasing tens of thousands of documents from the first batch of files related to the Epstein case. Those are the ones the DOJ handed over to Congress nearly two weeks ago. Those. But the leading House Republican, behind the push to release all of the files, he wants more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): I'm afraid this is going to be like Pam Bondi's binders. People are going to dig into it and say there's nothing new here. They haven't given us anything. They've given us the sleeves off their vest.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, Democratic congressman from Texas and member of the House Oversight Committee, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett.

Congresswoman, thank you for being here. As everyone has been eager to figure out what's in these documents, Massie is not satisfied, they've given over a number of them, is there anything in them that we haven't seen before?

REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): Um, a little bit, but not much. Am, as relates to what the committee actually released, I don't know. Um, they did that probably soon after we were sitting and talking to the Epstein survivors.

Um, and so, they didn't give us a heads up and say, hey, we're dropping this. We found out online like everyone else even though, obviously, we had just been with the chairman as well as the speaker sat in on our roundtable that we have with the survivors. So --

COATES: Why is that, you think?

CROCKETT: Um, because this is a game for them. And it's sad that we are still playing games after hearing these horrifying stories from these women.

And one of the things that I'm sure you can appreciate, um, is a lot of times, when you were trying to figure out if somebody is really engaged in certain criminal activity, is you look for the commonalities.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CROCKETT: There was at least one woman in that room who has never publicly come forward. The other survivors had never heard her story. In fact, there were a number of survivors that were there that had come out publicly but like, literally, they had not necessarily heard each other's stories. And the commonalities were so stark that it's like anybody could see that this was going on.

And the fact that you had somebody who was involved with Epstein back in the 90s and had reported in the 90s what was going on, and then to go down the line and have someone as late as 2003 telling her story, and then to have these people sit in there and play in their faces, and to hear from these victims where you know how hard it is --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CROCKETT: -- for them to tell their story, even when it's just to one person, say that prosecutor that is supposed to be their warrior, but to sit there in this room and they said, we are trusting you, and they were saying the words.

But I was looking at their body language, and I knew that they were nervous, that they were stepping out on faith to trust that we were going to do what was right. And now, it just seems like more gamesmanship.

COATES: The idea of corroboration only builds the credibility of what we've learned before --

CROCKETT: Yeah.

COATES: -- which also begs the question as to why there is not maybe more being done in the Justice Department, for example. But what does justice look like for you as a member of Congress, speaking to the victims, trying to have transparency and have the public aware of the full scope of the files? What is the right thing, according to Congress?

CROCKETT: So, you know what is so interesting? As I sat there and I listened, I was, like, this is like a ridiculous RICO case.

COATES: Hmm. CROCKETT: I mean, the levels of complexity and the levels of organizations that participated. We're talking about allegations that there were attorneys that were doing sham marriages, bringing ladies from Russia and Ukraine over. We're talking about specifically them potentially having links to foreign governments. We're talking about, um, little girls. We're talking about this happening to little girls, but also to young college girls.

We're talking about, um, all of the people that participated. It wasn't just Maxwell, it wasn't just Epstein, but we're talking about the fact that there were drivers that were driving these girls and knew what they were doing. There were butlers, there were cooks, there were lawyers, there were accountants. All of these people that were engaged, and we don't know their names.

COATES: Hmm.

CROCKETT: And so, there's a lot of people that are still out there that needs to be held accountable.

COATES: Well, you've got your fellow congresswoman, Anna Paulina Luna, who does not think that a floor vote is going to take place when it comes to these files. I think it's all going to be made public, anyway. You have Massie saying he wants more, wanting to push it through. Do you think he'll be able to actually get a release of everything, keeping in mind that the longer there are comments or it was with Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell, the bigger the file gets?

CROCKETT: Yeah. So, this is what I'll say, is that, um, first of all, I'm going to applaud Massie. Representative Massie somehow ends up on the right side of history every once in awhile --

COATES: Hmm.

CROCKETT: -- and this is yet another one of those examples. Um, I will tell you that I did sign his discharge petition today along with well over a hundred members.

[23:30:03]

I mean, I stayed late tonight after votes just because the line was so long to sign that discharge position to try to get this brought to the floor.

Now, whether or not the speaker is going to play games because he wants to kowtow to the president or if he is going to honor his oath and honor his words to those survivors today and do everything that he can supposedly, he's hiding behind semantics saying, oh, no, no, no.

This won't protect the victims, you know. So -- and so, you know. And we've already got oversight doing this, so we don't need to do this other thing. I think that it'll be important to really call him to the carpet.

We know that we've seen plenty of pieces of legislation that have not been perfect. But we know how to fix them. We know how to make them better. So, if this is really what you want to do, if you really want to send a signal, not only to these survivors, but the ones that still to this day have not come forward, that you are going to have a government that is about the people and not about the privileged --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CROCKETT: -- then this is what you do. You say by any means necessary, we are going to do this. And listen, I will tell you that there were -- there was a mention of a name today of somebody that we all know. This isn't about --

COATES: Who?

CROCKETT: I ain't going to tell that. But --

(LAUGHTER)

-- because it wasn't implicating for sure. It wasn't implicating.

COATES: It is an important distinction to make. Mentioning in a file doesn't necessarily mean that the person has actually committed criminal activity.

CROCKETT: Absolutely. Absolutely. And they were absolutely not, um, trying to implicate this particular person. More so, they were giving us examples of how, um, Maxwell as well as Epstein would show how powerful they were, because when you walk into Epstein's mansion, he had pictures of him with powerful people.

And so, once you were roped in, you were roped in, you were groomed. And no one ever told you, hey, you're going over so that you can become, you know, a victim of some sort of trafficking. Instead, it was a matter of you would go over. And it wouldn't necessarily be sex on that first time. It was absolute grooming. And then they would make sure --

COATES: Make sure you felt powerless to be able to stop it because look who this person is rubbing elbows with.

CROCKETT: Exactly.

COATES: But speaking of elbow rubbing, I have to ask you -- I mean, there is still this very real notion. Ghislaine Maxwell is no longer in the first prison she was in. Had a meeting with Todd Blanche and now is someplace else akin to a prison camp. Any idea as to why she was moved?

CROCKETT: Listen, all I can tell you is that I want answers. Um, and so, I am --

COATES: From Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche?

CROCKET: From the -- from the administration. Whoever signed off, whoever initiated, and then whoever signed off, because what we do know is that because of the type of crime that she was convicted of, there had to be special provisions made for her to even be able to go to this facility. So, I want to know why we were bending over backwards for a monster because that is who Maxwell is.

And I will tell you that it did not help the survivors to have her story amplified, her lies amplified. Some of these women had already testified against her. And I can tell you that every single one of those women that we saw today knew exactly who she was, and they could tell us and recount the role that she played.

So, I want the American people to not necessarily look to Maxwell and believe, number one, that she is credible, and number two, that we should be listening to her. We need to listen to those that made it possible to lock her up. And that is with what I would probably argue was an incomplete investigation in the first place.

And so, I also want to make sure if there's anybody that is out there and you know that you have information, make sure that if you offer to anybody, offer to Oversight Democrats, because I don't believe that there was a thorough investigation in the first place.

And I do believe there are more people that are out there that can offer us information even today so that, hopefully, we can make sure that those that are still alive and still need to be held accountable, that they are held accountable.

COATES: Congresswoman, thank you for joining.

CROCKETT: Absolutely.

COATES: Still ahead tonight, well, would you look here? China's Xi Jinping throws a huge military party. And who made the invite list? Who else but Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un. So, what is this show of force really about? Plus, a major escalation in Trump's war on the cartels as he orders the military to strike a drug boat from Venezuela. Was it a one-off or the start of a brand-new offensive? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, now, what to make of this photo-op? China's Xi Jinping, Russia's Vladimir Putin, North Korea's Kim Jong-un side by side in public for the very first time. Why, you ask? To mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, a parade showcasing China's power, with rows of uniformed soldiers marching down the stairs and across the sprawling red carpet. Xi telling his military that China's rise is unstoppable and that Beijing is never intimidated by any bullies, putting on full display new warfare equipment as well.

[23:39:57]

The Chinese leader warning the world they face a choice between peace and war.

I want to bring in lead global security analyst at "The Washington Post," Josh Rogin. He's also the author of "Chaos Under Heaven: Trump, Xi, and the Battle for the 21st Century." The perfect person to talk to about this. I mean, we've got this combination in Tiananmen Square, obviously meaning to send a message. President Trump, dragging it off. But is it a blow?

JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: Right. I mean, the Chinese government does this every year. They always want to have a parade and a pageant. This year, they're using the 80th anniversary of World War II to try to say that the U.S. and Russia and China were big partners --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ROGIN: Historically ambiguous. But, anyway, we get what they're trying to do. What's different this year is that it's working, that the Trump administration, through its tariff wars, has alienated so many countries, that they actually think that China is a more reliable and more stable partner, which is kind of crazy.

COATES: Hmm.

ROGIN: Because if you look at the Indians, for example, Prime Minister Modi, he didn't go to China for seven years. And now, he's there because President Trump is waging a trade war against India. And they're supposed to be our friend. And now, they're looking around the world and they're being, like, well, America is not really a reliable partner anymore, so we'll throw in with Putin and Xi Jinping.

That's not good. That's not what we want. So, we shouldn't be surprised that China is trying to claim that they're the good country or we're the bad country.

Well, it should shock us and should concern us, in my view. The fact that so many countries around the world are more amenable to that. They actually believe that now because of what our government is doing, by attacking every country in the world with a trade war at the exact same time.

COATES: So, is there a way to reverse course or we're just not there because the president of United States does not have the same view?

ROGIN: You know, President Trump said very clearly today in his press conference and his interview with Scott Jennings that he's not concerned about any of this, it's all going to be fine, and he's pretty sure that trade wars are going to all result in America's winning.

COATES: But let me -- let me play that so everyone --

ROGIN: Yeah.

COATES: -- knows what happened during that conversation. Listen to what said.

ROGIN: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP (voice-over): I'm not concerned at all. No, they -- I'm not at all. We have the strongest military in the world by far. Uh, they would never use their military on us. Believe me. That would be the worst thing they could ever do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He was asked whether a possible access between China and Russia post a concern for him.

ROGIN: Right.

COATES: His response, worst thing they could do. But he has also talked about how Vladimir Putin disappointed him recently --

ROGIN: Right.

COATES: -- and consistently.

ROGIN: Right.

COATES: So, which -- which is it?

ROGIN: Well, I mean, it's not entirely consistent position, but it's pretty clear that Trump is talking about a military war. But what China and Russia and North Korea and, to an extent, India are doing is not forming a military alliance. They're forming an economic alliance, a diplomatic alliance, a technological alliance. And that matters more these days than military alliance.

So, he could be right. I'm sure China is not going to attack us. But if they take over the world economically with Russia and India and North Korea and Belarus, that's still really bad for the United States. We should be against that. And so, I guess Trump is just deflecting there as he usually does.

But there's a real problem here, that America's standing in the world is going down and China's standing in the world is going up. And that's good for China and bad for the United States. At least that's how I see it.

COATES: Let's talk about this new thing that happened with just the president saying tonight that the U.S. Military did a military strike. It was against an alleged drug boat.

ROGIN: Right.

COATES: They say it came, it was tied with the drug cartel Tren de Aragua. It killed 11 people in international waters. What are the implications of that?

ROGIN: You know, this is what Duterte used to do in the Philippines. He would just find some drug dealers and kill them. Right? And that was his policy. You're a drug dealer, you die. And that led to a lot of bad outcomes in the Philippines because -- you know, we had a system in this country before where, you know, if you're a drug dealer, well, you should be tried and prosecuted and maybe jailed, and there was some process involved.

But now, the Trump administration says, well, they're all terrorists, so we'll just kill them all. And that has a lot of risks. And, uh, the problem there, of course, is that once you say everyone is a terrorist, then you've sort of given the U.S. Military an endless mission.

And we have a very highly trained, very expert military. They're really patriotic. They're really dedicated Americans, men and women who have, you know, pledged their lives to serve our country, to keep us safe. And when you just set them on the mission of just killing everybody that's committing a crime, it's really not a service to them, in my view, and you're -- you're making it such that that's not the mission that they were trained for.

So, I think there's a lot of things that can go wrong when you set the U.S. Military on American cities. For example, if you're talking about in your earlier segment or killing drug dealers in international waters or -- God knows what he's got planned for them next, you know.

American military is something that we are very proud of. These young men and women are -- have -- deserve our trust --

COATES: Hmm.

ROGIN: -- and they deserve our respect. And, in my view, that means not expanding their mission to the point where we're setting them on Americans and on criminals because that's not the job, and that's an -- that's an endless mission, and I think that there's a lot of risk and a lot of danger.

[23:45:04]

COATES: Really poignant. Josh Rogin, thank you so much.

ROGIN: Any time.

COATES: Just in tonight, another legal ruling against President Trump. This time, a federal appeals court ruled that he can't use, cannot use the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport Venezuelan gang members. The ruling was two to one. The court also blocked the use of the law to carry out deportations in Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi. And the administration, of course, can choose to appeal, this time to the Fifth Circuit, or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. So, stay tuned.

Up next, tonight, forget your ABCs, it's time for your A.I. chat GPTs. The A.I. revolution comes with a classroom and inspires a new type of school, one where A.I. does the teaching for just two hours a day. No traditional teacher necessary. You're intrigued, aren't you? Well, a school's co-founder joins me with her pitch next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So, why don't you think of all the things that were once staples in the classroom? They now feel like they belong in a museum, I'm sure, for many of us. Remember the rolling TV carts? I do. The squeaky overhead projectors? Yep. The cursive handwriting charts? All of it.

Well, what if I told you that the most essential part of the classroom could soon join that group? Yep. I'm talking about teachers. Because a new school called Alpha School is reimagining the entire concept of a classroom. Starting by replacing human teachers with A.I., A.I.- generated lesson plans. Alpha says that these lesson plans use A.I. to carefully tailor them to each student's abilities.

But these students will only spend about two hours a day being taught by these A.I. models. They'll all then spend their afternoons focusing on life skills. Things like riding a bike, go rock climbing, even managing an Airbnb property. Who supervises these kids? Well, Alpha calls them guides. And while these guides aren't educators in the traditional sense, they are there to motivate students and act as mentors.

Joining me now is one of the co-founders of the Alpha School, MacKenzie Price. MacKenzie, welcome. I -- this is such a fascinating concept. I'm wondering, because it's so different than what people think about a traditional school, why do you believe that children being taught by A.I. is a more effective approach?

MACKENZIE PRICE, CO-FOUNDER, ALPHA SCHOOLS: Laura, I will tell you, there has never been a more exciting time to be a five-year-old or a teacher because finally, we're at this turning point where we can take the very best of technology, which allows us to personalize learning to meet every child exactly at the level and pace of knowledge that they need in order to learn effectively, and then we can transform the role of our teachers to be able to focus on what only humans are great at, which is motivational and emotional support, which is key to learning.

So, it is a really fun time here in education, and I think it's going to be a very bright future.

COATES: What about the traditional notion that there might be a social disconnect by all the screen time as opposed to learning collaboratively with one's peers if everything is always tailored to you?

PRICE: Well, there's a very common misconception when we think about A.I. in the classroom. Everyone thinks of, like, robot terminator. You know, robots or cheat bots, which is what we call chat bots. Those are not effective.

What we've instead found is that kids can actually spend a significantly smaller portion of time learning in this one-to-one mastery-based environment that's delivered on screens but is way more engaging than sitting in a classroom kind of like this looking forward. Instead, they're getting that one-to-one learning, and then the rest of the school day is freed up to do all the socialization and relationship building and mentorship.

In fact, our teachers in our classrooms are getting so much more one- on-one and group time interacting with our students and the students get to interact with each other because we've made the learning part of our day so much more effective and efficient. So, that's a beautiful thing about what this new model of education can really usher in.

COATES: But my expectation as a parent is that a teacher would have a teaching degree. Why would that be obsolete here?

PRICE: Yeah, in this case, our teachers are not teaching academic content.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PRICE: They're not teaching necessarily math or science. Instead, what they're doing is they're focusing on getting to know every single kid in terms of what motivates them and excites them, and then making sure that these students have the correct lessons and plans in front of them to learn.

And that's what's so important. You know, if you look at our country today, there's only a third of students that are reading or doing math at grade level. And it is so important that, as a teacher, we have an ability to provide a student with the grade level of information that they need to be effective.

So, think about that teacher who's got a fifth-grade classroom of students. When we allow technology to provide personalized learning plans that take a fifth-grade student who maybe needs third or fourth- grade knowledge or that fifth-grade student who could be working ahead in sixth or seventh-grade knowledge, and then allowing the teacher the time to get to know a student and help them with motivation, that's the real magic unlocked.

So, make no mistake, teachers are critical and they always will be, but we're allowing them to do what they are so good and impactful at, which is human connection, and allowing the best of what A.I. can do, which is that personalized lesson plan. That's why it's such an amazing time here in education and something --

COATES: But --

PRICE: -- that I think people will be excited about.

COATES: Hold on. Mackenzie, before you go into it, I want to --

PRICE: Yeah.

COATES: Is this something that can be generally applicable to even students who are not autonomous or ones that can be motivated traditionally by the human connection? [23:55:03]

Because it sounds like teachers are becoming, the way you're describing it, cheerleaders as opposed to -- no offense to cheerleaders, I'm all for them, but cheerleaders --

PRICE: Yeah.

COATES: -- as opposed to people who are going to actually tailor and help and supplement.

PRICE: Well, if you think about a teacher in a traditional classroom who's dealing with 20 or 25 students that are all at wildly different levels --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PRICE: -- it's very hard when they're also responsible for delivering content in a time-based system to be able to meet each student where they're at, and that's why motivation is such an important part. So, in this system, we're actually able to act on that child who maybe is struggling to get engaged with content and help teachers work in that way.

COATES: Fascinating. I wonder if this is indeed the future and whether it will catch on. MacKenzie Price, thank you.

PRICE: Thank you.

COATES: And hey, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)