Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Congress Greenlights Bill Forcing Trump to Release Epstein Files; Epstein Survivors Speak Out; White House Rolls Out Red Carpet for Saudi Crown Prince; Court Blocks Texas's GOP-Friendly Congressional Map. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired November 18, 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]

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, bill forcing the release of the Epstein files is headed to President Trump's desk. So, what actually happens once he signs it? And could the DOJ still find some way to hold something back? Plus, Epstein survivors speak out on Capitol Hill and warn President Trump not to politicize their theme (ph). One of them, who was just 17 years old when Epstein abused her, will join me live tonight. And Trump defends the Saudi Crown Prince over the murder of a journalist with two words, things happen. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, by this time tomorrow, President Trump is expected to have signed the bill that forces the release of the Epstein files. By the way, he didn't actually need the bill. He could have done so. But it's out there. It has also been four months since Trump's team turned this into, well, a mess of its own making, because it has been years of agony for the survivors.

But the final push to get this bill over that finish line is coming together quickly. The House voted nearly unanimously to pass it this afternoon. I'm talking 427 to 1. And the Senate then unanimously agreed on it shortly after. The majority leader says it will be sent to Trump's desk tomorrow. The president has said that yes, he will sign it even though he went after a reporter who asked about the Epstein files today in the Oval Office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mr. President, why wait for Congress to release the Epstein files? Why not just do it now?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You know, it's not the question that I mind, it's your attitude. I think you are a terrible reporter. As far as the Epstein files is, I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. I threw him out of my club many years ago because I thought he was a sick pervert.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, that defensiveness is exactly why some survivors are skeptical of this sudden change in tone. A group of them gathered at the Capitol, and they had a message of their own for the president the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HALEY ROBSON, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: To the president of the United States of America who is not here today, I want to send a clear message to you. While I do understand that your position has changed on the Epstein files and I'm grateful that you have pledged to sign this bill, I can't help to be skeptical of what the agenda is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, once Trump signs this bill, what actually happens? Because it comes down to the DOJ to put out the files they have. And here's what the bill actually says. The moment Trump inks it into law, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, will have 30 days to make the files public. We're talking all of them.

And the bill, frankly, it's crystal clear about what cannot be used as an excuse to redact. It says, no record can be redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputation harm or political sensitivity, not for any government official, not for any public figure, not for any foreign dignitary.

But there still are exceptions, and these are very important. You got to pay attention here because one is for personally identifiable information of the victims. And then there's a big one. The attorney general may withhold or redact information specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.

Don't bother reading what defines either of those because it's Pam Bondi who gets to decide what is in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. That means it gives her pretty sweeping discretion on what can stay hidden, which frankly happens in other contexts as well.

But even that may not be the biggest loophole here because the president, he may have an outright eject button. Remember his post from Friday morning? The one that Pam Bondi to investigate Epstein's ties to a slew of high-profile Democrats? It was a demand that Bondi was happy to oblige. You see that? Less than four hours later, she announced Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, would lead that review.

Now, there's no evidence that anyone Trump called out committed any wrongdoing, and Trump himself has not been criminally accused. But here's why it matters. It could create a pretext for the DOJ to put the kibosh and release the files all together. Why is that? Because the DOJ doesn't release information about an ongoing criminal investigation.

[23:05:00]

Just doesn't happen normally. Prosecutors know that putting anything out there could jeopardize the integrity of an existing case and the whole case. And all of this hit on a bigger point. Like it or not, releasing these files would collide with decades of DOJ and FBI practice. Federal case files are not written for public release. They're packed with raw leads and unverified claims, as well as things that are incriminating and exculpatory. And releasing them unfiltered will likely set off a wave of litigation. We talked about it just last night. It could also blow up long-standing rules.

In just a moment, our chief law enforcement analyst, John Miller, is going to help explain what's at stake from the investigatory lens.

Let's begin with Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury who sits on the House Oversight Committee, leading the charge on the release of the Epstein files. Congresswoman, thank you for being here. What a journey this has been. The DOJ is in possession of all the files, controls all of them. Do you trust that they indeed will release all the files and will be transparent about what they have and don't have?

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): You know, I think that the last several months, as we've watched Donald Trump essentially tried to kill the discharge petition, he has bullied members of Congress, he has threatened them, he called it a hostile act, he took Lauren Boebert into the Situation Room, he excommunicated Marjorie Taylor Greene and called her a traitor, and then suddenly, Sunday night, reversed course and said he supports releasing the entire thing. I mean, I think we are all highly skeptical.

But I do think it is important to take a moment tonight after this discharge petition passed the House. It has gone through the roofs in the Senate. You know, the survivors have spent months advocating for this, and it's a big moment for them and an important moment to acknowledge that the stories of survivors matters and that their fight matters. And so, I do want to celebrate that victory.

COATES: We cannot overlook that victory on this journey, which has been really almost decades-long for some of them, and we should acknowledge that, full stop. So, thank you for doing that. Um, part of my question has been with survivors, with members of Congress, with DOJ and beyond, frankly, has been what the end game, so to speak, would be. I don't mean that in a pejorative way. I mean, what will come out in these files and then what? Do you have a sense?

STANSBURY: Right. Yeah, I mean, so, I spent much of today with many of the survivors who were here on Capitol Hill. They had a press conference this morning, and then the women's caucuses, both the Democratic and Republican women's caucuses, met with them, and then we did a candlelight vigil.

And part of the topic that was discussed is what is justice, what does justice look like for the victims, many of whom have been advocating since the 90s for not only the release of their files, but for the prosecution of crimes that were never prosecuted. And, you know, the latest dump of files that we received last week from the estate raise additional questions about who was implicated, what happened, what was going on with Department of Justice.

And I think -- I think that justice starts to shape up a little something like this. Many of the survivors don't know why the crimes that they reported to the police never went anywhere. And so, they want to understand why -- why did nothing ever come of the reporting of their own crimes? Where -- what happened to their sworn statements? What did the FBI investigate? Why did their crimes never get included in any kind of prosecutorial arrangement? So, I think for many of them, they're looking for closure.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

STANSBURY: Um, the victims themselves. Of course, no other individuals who were involved in these crimes, not just men who exploited them, but also the ring of people around Jeffrey Epstein, the people who exchange money. We know that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in a vast money laundering scheme involving payment for sex and movement of money through bank accounts. Tonight, we announced that we are doing a bipartisan subpoena of Jeffrey Epstein's bank accounts through two banks.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

STANSBURY: And so that is some new news in this case. And so, you know, I think that they would like to see prosecution of folks who were never held accountable. So that is part of the end game as well. And I also think, you know, there's an element to justice that is about truth telling. They've been telling their truth. They've been speaking their truth for years.

[23:10:00]

And now, they want the public to hear the truth of what happened in the powerful systems that basically suppressed this case.

COATES: So important to think about that fulsomely, as you've laid out. I want to go back for a second to subpoenas, including one for JPMorgan. Could you just describe a little bit of what you're hoping to get out of that subpoena, knowing that we've just recently received collectively as a society the estate various emails and beyond? Do you think there's anything specific that you would find with those financial records?

STANSBURY: Yeah, you know, there's some excellent reporting from "The New York Times" that came out a few weeks ago in which they had interviewed a number of individuals at JPMorgan, and there were people at JPMorgan that knew that scene was potentially money laundering and had very unusual and circumspect financial arrangements happening, but he was clearly making the bank a lot of money and bringing a big quite for them, and so they look the other way.

And we know that after he died, JPMorgan transmitted a bunch of files to the Treasury Department essentially reporting irregular financial transactions pursuant to the law. And it raises the question, one, why did they wait till he was dead to report it? I mean, I think we know partly from this reporting. But two, what were those wire transfers for? Who was involved?

And when you look at the bank records that the estate has sent over, I mean, the last tranche that we received is really in some ways part of what took Prince Andrew down because there was a financial transaction that was highlighted in those files that actually named Prince Andrew. And I have to say, if you look at the files that we got last week, Donald Trump's name also appears in financial transactions and Jeffrey Epstein's bank accounts. And so, I think part of what we want to know is what was the nature of those.

COATES: You know, I should note, Republican Congressman Clay Higgins, who is the lone no vote, by the way, says that this bill will hurt people who are not criminally implicated. Speaker Johnson, concerned that survivors aren't protected enough. When you think about perhaps the Pandora's box of just names that might come from the release of all these files, those who are named but not necessarily --

STANSBURY: Uh-hmm.

COATES: -- implicated, do you have concerns about the impact of those names outed in the public square?

STANSBURY: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I think that their -- I mean, this is such an explosive case, but how could it be any more damaging than the innuendo that is already out there? Right? I mean, uh, for decades, people have had theories about who was involved, who knew what, et cetera. And the only way we can actually know what was criminally investigated, what was not criminally investigated is to have the actual FBI and DOJ files because that is the work of actually looking at what was legal, what was not, and who knew what.

So, I actually think that -- you know, one of the victims said today as we were talking to them is, I think it is time for us to create the space for this to be messy so that it can be resolved. And I do think it's going to be messy. I think there are potentially names in there that some of us think are in there, and I think it is time for them to be held accountable.

COATES: Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, thank you.

STANSBURY: Thank you.

COATES: So, you know, I've been wondering how this new legislation might impact the Department of Justice and law enforcement more broadly. Well, my next guest was the NYPD deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism when Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges back in 2019. He's now our chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst. John Miller joins me now. He also was an assistant director, by the way, of the FBI, by the way, I should mention.

John, I'm glad to have you here. You say that this bill has more than the potential, that it actually would break longstanding protocol at the FBI. Explain.

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: So, nothing like this has ever happened before, where the FBI, in a wide- reaching complex case, is going to release a raw, unredacted file. And I think you did a great job on touching on what some of that means, but I think it's important to revisit. That means witnesses who were interviewed, uh, their names are going to be out there, their statements are going to be out there. These are people who are likely guaranteed confidentiality on the idea that if you don't testify at trial, no one will ever know, you know, what you said. That means confidential source information may be in there. It means that people who were accused of things where there was not enough evidence in the view of agents and prosecutors to charge them, uh, will be out there, too.

[23:15:02]

There is a reason that they have a set of protocols to redact files so that you don't see the names of witnesses, you don't see the names of protected sources, you may not see the names of people who are accused, who are not charged. Um, this is going to cross that line, and we can debate the efficacy of it --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

MILLER: -- but what do you do in the next case when this precedent is set?

COATES: Let's talk about that because I wonder what will happen to, say, law enforcement in the way they approach investigations. Are they likely to choose not to document certain aspects of things just because they need to convey a sense of confidentiality to a person that they might very well need? And if that's the case, what happens at trial when you've got to have, as you well know, the records, documents, the memory recall, let alone potentially exculpatory information conveyed?

MILLER: Well, I mean, you asked the question and you answered it, which is you can't have a system where you decide that things are so sensitive that they can't be documented, and then they end up in little notes in desk drawers that are -- they become kind of off-the- record pieces of evidence. You can't function that way because the defense and other parties are entitled to discovery, and they're supposed to get it all.

COATES: And yet that new investigation that President Trump ordered just last week, will that impact the ability to even hand over documents if there's a new investigation?

MILLER: So, Laura, that will be the ultimate bait and switch, which is if what we saw was something that in arc over years, that you had Kash Patel, the FBI director, Dan Bongino, the deputy FBI director, back when they were podcasters saying, this is a scandal upon the House of the Democrats and all this information must be released, you had President Trump saying the same thing, then when they opened the files and did the redactions, they found out that there were a number of mentions of President Trump in there, we don't know the context --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

MILLER: -- and -- and he hasn't been accused of anything, but then they said, case is closed, the only two people who could or should have been prosecuted were, and one of them is dead and the other is in jail, and we should never need to look in here again, to say that we now tell Congress, vote for this bill, to let all these records out, and then turn around the next day and say, but we can't do that because we just ordered up a brand new reopening of the investigation, we'll not make any side of these parties, the victims, the Republicans, the Democrats, the conspiracy theorists happy.

COATES: A bait and switch in Washington, D.C. John Miller --

MILLER: America.

COATES: -- can't possibly. John Miller, thank you for joining me.

MILLER: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Everything he just described. You weigh the public interest against the personal interest and the deep investment of so many people. Up next, I'm going to talk to Epstein's survivors who have been making themselves known in Washington, D.C. and all over, frankly, the world, captivated by what has happened. And one is here to tell her story and her dream. Danielle Bensky was an aspiring ballerina when she was pulled into Epstein's sick orbit as a teenager. Her mother's own health was held over her head for leverage. She tells me if she is satisfied by Congress's decisions today and what she thinks justice should look like.

And ahead, the CIA says he ordered the killing of a journalist. Yet tonight, the Saudi Crown Prince is being honored with a lavish, scrumptious dinner at the White House.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANIELLE BENSKY, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: We're united in the call for transparency, complete transparency, to find justice, justice for our younger selves. These pictures that you see, they're real people. I wish I could go back and give my former self a hug and say, this matter and it's going to change and mean it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That was Danielle Bensky. She was victimized by Jeffrey Epstein when she was just 17 years old. An aspiring dancer, Danielle says it all started when she and her friend were approached by a woman, told they could make some money by giving Epstein massages. Needing to make ends meet, Danielle met Epstein. And when her own mother was diagnosed with a brain tumor, she asked him for help. And he said he could help, but only if she brought in more girls. Danielle says that's when everything got worse.

You know, today, Danielle was on Capitol Hill advocating alongside other survivors of Epstein's and supporting one another as the bill to force the release of the Epstein documents passed. Bensky is here with me now. Danielle, it's nice to see you again.

BENSKY: Great to see you. Thank you so much for having me back.

COATES: You know, there has been -- from September when people saw survivors like yourself on Capitol Hill till now, people are invested. They have leaned in. But I couldn't help but notice, there was something different about today in terms of the emotion and how people felt. Can you explain how you were feeling?

BENSKY: Yeah. I definitely feel the first press conference in September was one of power. I felt like it was the first time a lot of us had met each other. And all of a sudden, you saw, oh, you've been through what I've been through. And you can see that deeply rooted, sort of like pain that they carry, and -- and just bonded together in that in such a beautiful way. But we've had a few months together now. We talk often. A lot of us talk like, you know, multiple times a day sometimes.

[23:25:00]

And so, I just think that because we've gotten to know each other so well, there's a new level of identity and vulnerability.

COATES: Hmm.

BENSKY: And I think that what this particular press conference displayed was that we weren't afraid to be vulnerable around each other. And we always talk about transparency. And I think it starts with us. And I think we are being very transparent by pulling -- you know, digging deep down into those 15, 14, 16, 17-year-old versions of ourselves and just being able to try to heal that with each other.

COATES: And we saw those 15, 14 through 17. We are seeing that powerful reminder that although we are seeing women, powerful women like you today, we're talking about the vulnerable young girls that you were when this happened. Why was that so important to make people understood?

BENSKY: Yeah. I mean, for me, you know my background a little bit, but I'm a choreographer, I teach dance, and I work with kids all the time --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

BENSKY: -- that are that age range in particular. And I've heard some stories from kids that are, you know, horrific in the sense of, you know, so and so, asked me to go to this house or, you know. And it's just -- just we cannot keep it. We cannot keep perpetuating this, right? And I think that, like, we know that there are other names in the files. We don't know who those people are at this point and like with the transparency and all of that. We can hold all of them accountable but accountability comes in many forms.

COATES: Uh-hmm. BENSKY: And I'm finding that, you know, taking names off of scholarships, taking names off of buildings, all of that needs to start so that we can see real systemic change about how we are running our country and make sure that there is no abuse of power.

COATES: No cover for predators. Um, the Senate is likely to pass this, of course. They've already unanimously voted. I mean, I see your smile already.

BENSKY: Exciting.

COATES: The House was able to do so.

BENSKY: Yeah, it's really exciting.

COATES: This -- this could end up signed by tomorrow from the president of United States. That's got to feel --

BENSKY: Crazy.

COATES: -- unbelievable.

BENSKY: It's crazy. I mean, it's really insane. Like -- it felt like, you know, we were thinking as survivors who -- the legislative piece of this is so interesting to me. And I, through this process, only in the last few months, I'm like, advocacy is amazing. I love it. I think most of us feel that way because we really want change, right? It's not about the politics. We've said that so many times.

So, we really were thinking, okay, great. So, we're going to have a holiday break, we're going to come back in January, we're going to be here in January and February lobbying, we're going to talk to every Senator we possibly can, and we're just going to plead our case. And then today, it was like we were literally in the vigil and we hear like, oh, it went through Senate. It's like it's going to his desk.

COATES: What was that like?

BENSKY: Oh my gosh! Like, everybody is like stunned, you know, because it's like we had this beautiful, massive win that we've been fighting for in the House over -- in the House -- in the House rather. And then, you know, we're in the same day. It's just, like, this roller coaster of you just don't even know which end is up anymore. So, yeah, I do. I'm amazed.

And I definitely feel like, you know, it is important to note that while we know that it's going to Senate, it does feel like a victory and it does feel like a little -- it's like -- it's like the spark or like the glimmer of light has turned into like the beam of light that sort of like paves the way. It's like this is your path now, but it is in no way the finish line, right?

COATES: When is that finish line for you?

BENSKY: The finish line is the trans -- it's all of it coming out. It's just making sure that every single piece, every single document sees the light of day, and we have -- we have the files.

COATES: Do you trust that Trump will sign it?

BENSKY: You know, I think survivors are a little bit -- we're wary of -- you know, we have a little bit of whiplash, I think. And anything could happen at any time, and we have seen that time and time again. So, this whole idea of maybe tying up new litigation and then files will be, you know, stalled again and like -- that we don't want to see any of that happen. We really want to make sure that there's just a straight path forward here, and let's just do it.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Danielle Bensky, thank you so much.

BENSKY: Thank you. Thank you so much for having me.

COATES: Truly the power of advocacy. Trump, the president, hosting a lavish dinner at the White House tonight, rolling out the red carpet for the Saudi Crown Prince, the man the CIA says ordered the killing of a journalist. Plus, the courts blocked the gerrymandered Texas congressional map that set off a redistricting war across the country. What that means for who will win come midterms.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, it's a dinner invite fit for a royal. You got Tim Cook, Elon Musk, even soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo. All at the White House as President Trump rolls out the red carpet for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Tonight's dinner caps a historic visit by the prince, filled with pomp and pageantry as he secures his deals to buy fighter jets and advanced chips.

[23:34:55]

It was also his first visit to the White House in seven years and the first visit since the murder of Saudi-born Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which the CIA says he was behind. But when asked about that today, the president reacted like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You're mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen. But he knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He didn't say that though MBS did want to respond. But things happen? Not usually how you describe a murder. And when you open up, say, the dictionary, it defines the word murder as -- quote -- "to kill a person unlawfully and unjustifiably with premeditated malice." Premeditated. Not to mention this man was dismembered. Very opposite of things happen.

As a prosecutor, you know, I'm going to lay out the facts. So, here are the facts as we know them. Khashoggi was killed and dismembered when he walked into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey on October 2, 2018. He never came out. Murdered by a hit team from Saudi Arabia. Don't take my word for it. Look at what the Saudi government said. They called it premeditated. They conceded Saudi officials were involved. They convicted eight suspects. That's straight from the Crown Prince himself.

And like I said, the U.S. goes a step further. An intelligence report says bin Salman himself -- quote -- "approved and ordered the murder of Khashoggi." Why? Because Khashoggi challenged the regime of the Saudi royal family, calling them repressive.

Let me be clear, it wasn't just Trump who spoke and met with him, and Biden was accused of looking the other way as well. Remember that fist bump? We all do. That was just four years after Khashoggi's murder. Now, here we are eight years later, the power of money, because all those concerns about human rights abuses seem to have vanished under the weight of a trillion dollars in Saudi investments in the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So, I just want to thank you. We've been really good friends for a long period of time. We've always been on the same side of every issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I'm joined now by former New Jersey Democratic congressman, Tom Malinowski, who is running for Congress again. Also here, former Louisiana Republican congressman, Garret Graves. Good to have both of you with me on this. I'll begin with you, Tom. Quite a warm reception for the Saudi Crown Prince tonight. Did it surprise you?

TOM MALINOWSKI, NEW JERSEY HOUSE CANDIDATE, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: Nothing surprises me anymore with -- with -- with Trump and his love affair with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. It's still sad to see the president of the United States sitting there in the Oval Office with the bloodthirsty killer.

And not only dismissing it, not only seeming to justify the murder of a journalist who live in the United States, but then to turn to the Crown Prince and to say he knew nothing about it, when Donald Trump knows perfectly well and we all know perfectly well that the Crown Prince ordered that murder and knows perfectly well what happened, it's -- I can't think of sinking any lower than -- than what happened today.

And Laura, you mentioned a trillion dollars in Saudi investment in the United States. That's not happening. There's not a trillion dollars in Saudi investment. Gulf countries have been competing with each other to offer Donald Trump fake numbers --

COATES: Hmm.

MALINOWSKI: -- as they seek to buy his favor. The investment that matters is not in the United States. The investment that brought about this meeting was a bunch of gulf deals and resort deals that the Saudi government offered to Donald Trump the man, Donald Trump the businessman, not Donald Trump the president. United States is getting absolutely nothing of value out of this, whereas the Saudis are getting every they asked for on this visit. So --

COATES: Well, I wonder, Garret --

MALINOWSKI: -- from an American national interest point of view --

COATES: Finish your point, please.

MALINOWSKI: -- it's just terrible.

COATES: Well, Garret, I want to bring you into this because I wonder if you are as skeptical as your former colleague is about this relationship because, obviously, Trump has designated Saudi Arabia as a major non-NATO ally now, and he was thrilled with the announcement of $1 trillion. There are reports and, of course, truth to the idea that there is a relationship in Saudi Arabia with the Trump family and business. Are you skeptical about this visit and whether the United States will actually see this investment?

GARRET GRAVES, FORMER LOUISIANA REPRESENTATIVE: I'm not. Look, you can't -- you can't say anything about the murder other than it was horrific. And I want to make that crystal clear. You can't defend it. You can't justify it. It was horrific. But something else that you can't ignore is you can't ignore Saudi Arabia. They're absolutely critical to Middle East.

[23:40:00]

Look at what has happened there for generations. As we've had instability, you've had deaths all across that region. Israel has -- has been attacked. They're absolutely critical. You can look at what happened in Iraq. You can look at what happened in Afghanistan. Voids are going to be filled. And do we want to fill with Tehran and Beijing, or do we want to fill with the United States of America? There's only one right answer to that question.

COATES: So, do you agree with the idea of the provision of fighter jets, et cetera? Obviously, Israel is the one who only had them before in that particular region. There is concern about handing them over might give some insight, intelligence-wise, to, say, China or otherwise, to duplicate the technology. Do you have concerns?

GRAVES: Look, I think that we have the ability to protect our assets and intellectual property, our defense technology. We have the ability to do that. We're not going to go in and just give this stuff away to countries that are going to make it available to China and other nations. Saudi Arabia is the most powerful member of OPEC. This relationship is absolutely critical, not just for stability in the Middle East, but also to ensure that we can further corner Russia, that we can cut them off, that we can dry up their energy resources. This relationship is fundamental to success, peace, and security.

COATES: Tom, let me bring you back into this. Do you think that the idea of a Saudi-U.S. relationship would serve our nation?

MALINOWSKI: We -- no one is questioning the relationship. We've always had a relationship. We will continue to have a relationship. You can have a relationship without having the crown prince in the Oval Office justifying his murder of a journalist. And look at like -- That's specifically what is happening.

COATES: Wait. Is that formal -- I want to be clear. I'm setting aside the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

MALINOWSKI: Let me talk about this --

COATES: But I want to be clear --

MALINOWSKI: Let me just talk about the substance.

COATES: I do want to hear that. But I want to be clear with what my question is to you, and that is, are you suggesting that a relationship is fine as long as it is done in the dark? And the accepting of money, accepting of investment, the provision of jets are fine as long as it is --

MALINOWSKI: Absolutely not.

COATES: Okay.

MALINOWSKI: No. I think the relationship should -- should -- should serve American interests. If you look at the deal that came out of this meeting, Saudi Arabia got the most advanced American fighter jets, which actually the U.S. Intelligence Community does not believe are safe from Chinese espionage in Saudi Arabia. They got access to our most advanced A.I. chips. They got a nuclear deal. They got the legitimization of the Crown Prince that came from his being in the Oval Office. That is their entire wish list. What did the United States get?

Saudi Arabia is not recognizing Israel. Saudi Arabia is continuing to purchase Russian oil, something that Donald Trump cares about when India does it, when other countries do it, but not Saudi Arabia. There's no progress on human rights coming out of this. There are Americans who are detained, American citizens in Saudi Arabia. They are not being released.

We are not getting anything out of this except for Donald Trump personally getting a bunch of lucrative real estate deals. That colors this entire relationship right now. The fact that the president is violating the Constitution of the United States by accepting emoluments from the Saudi government -- COATES: Well, we have to go on this. I want to hear quickly --

MALINOWSKI: -- the history of American foreign policy.

COATES: Quickly, Garret, you want to respond.

GRAVES: Look, you have Donald Trump who's a billionaire. He's got diverse investments all over the world. You want to talk about things that are inappropriate? How about someone who's addicted to crack, who's making millions of dollars on the industries and industry sectors where he has no experience? This is crazy. And, of course, I'm talking about Hunter Biden. Donald Trump is a billionaire. It's in a blind trust. He's not making the decisions himself. Bottom line is that the Saudi relationship is absolutely critical.

MALINOWSKI: He does not have a blind trust, Garret. He does not have a blind trust. You know perfectly well he does not have a blind trust.

GRAVES: He is not managing the assets.

MALINOWSKI: Garret, don't be naive.

GRAVES: I'm not being naive.

MALINOWSKI: All of the diplomacy --

GRAVES: Tom, where the naivety is coming into play is the fact that you think that you can just cut off Saudi Arabia and everything is going to be fine. China is going to step in --

MALINOWSKI: No, I don't.

GRAVES: -- and so will Iran. We've got to have a relationship there. And we can sit here and try and force U.S. policies or U.S. values all over the world, but we've got to recognize that other countries are different. We've got to start to work. Engagement in this case is the right move. And building upon the Abraham Accords, building peace in the Middle East, these things would not have happened if we hadn't been engaging Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East.

COATES: I wonder what will happen. We'll see what --

MALINOWSKI: Saudi Arabia --

COATES: -- course ends up being -- Tom, I hear you. Garret, I hear you. This is not the end of it. We're going to talk as well. Thank you so much, both of you. Up next, the map that set off a nationwide redistricting war getting a big thumbs down from the courts today.

[23:44:57]

James Talarico fled Texas to keep that map from passing. He speaks out after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: A stinging blow for President Trump and Republicans tonight. A federal court blocking Texas from using their newly-drawn congressional map in next year's midterms. Why? A Trump-appointed judge says substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.

Now, the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act 1965 prohibit voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, that dilute voting power on the basis of race or have a discriminatory effect on voting on the basis of race. Additional enough, gerrymandering based on partisanship and political party is sometimes raised as a defense to an accusation of race-based gerrymandering.

[23:50:01]

Case in point, I didn't redraw the map to hurt Black and brown voters. I did it to help Democrats or Republicans. You'll recall the president pressed Texas Republicans to redraw their maps in a way that would give the party an edge in winning five more House seats, setting off an all-out war among redistrictors across the country. Well, tonight, Texas Governor Greg Abbott says the fight is far from over, saying -- quote -- "State of Texas will swiftly appeal to the United States Supreme Court."

My next guest is one of the Democrats that temporarily fled the State of Texas to stop these maps from passing. Texas Senate Representative James Talarico joins me now. Thank you for being here, representative. How significant is this ruling to you and your Democratic colleagues who, frankly, fought tooth and nail to try to prevent this very thing from happening in the legislature?

JAMES TALARICO (D-TX): Yeah, my fellow Texas Democrats and I, we broke quorum to shine a national spotlight on Trump's redistricting power grab. And in the process, we inspired other states. We also inspired millions of Americans to join this fight. And earlier today, this federal court struck down this rig map. And to us, this is a tremendous victory, not for the Democratic Party, but for the democratic process. This is why we fight back. This is why we take a stand. And when we take that stand together, we can win. Today is proof of that.

COATES: Well, democracy requires voting and not the restrictions or the manipulation that this judge clearly saw there and ruled accordingly on this very idea of injunctive release. But the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, is arguing that Democrats are just as complicit when it comes to partisan redistricting, saying -- quote -- "When Republicans respond in kind, Democrats rely on false accusations of racism to secure a partisan advantage." What's your reaction to this criticism?

TALARICO: I mean, anyone can take a look at these maps and you can see how the Republican politicians in Austin intentionally diluted the voting power of Black and brown communities across the State of Texas. This is intentional discriminatory racial gerrymandering. It's some of the worst that we've ever seen coming out of the State of Texas. And I'm so thankful that this bipartisan panel of federal judges recognize the violation of the Voting Rights Act and decided to strike this map down. I hope that we can move forward in this country and summon the political will to pass a national ban on gerrymandering to end this practice once and for all in red states and blue states alike.

COATES: That would, if you did pass that, apply equally across the board. And you do have Democrats and so-called blue states that are suggesting they need to fight fire with fire. Are you suggesting that a total end, not just for gerrymandering, obviously for race-based reasons, which is prohibited under Section 2, but also partisan-based gerrymandering, that gives an advantage to one party or the other?

TALARICO: Yeah, we should end gerrymandering everywhere because voters should choose their politicians. Politicians shouldn't choose their voters. This is a way that politicians subvert the public will and insulate themselves from accountability at the ballot box. Nothing could be more un-American. And I worry that gerrymandering allows people to hold on to power without that accountability from voters. That's why I want to end this kind of practice of drawing districts to manufacture the outcome people want in all states in the union.

COATES: People thought the Voting Rights Act would be enough of a deterrent as we see the chipping away. Clearly, it is still an issue. I wonder how that will impact the Supreme Court if they should decide to evaluate the rest of it.

Let me ask you this as well. This is just coming in tonight, frankly. A Texas judge temporarily blocks a law that requires the 10 commandments in certain public schools. You've been an educator. What's your reaction?

TALARICO: Well, I haven't just been a Texas public school teacher, I'm also a current student in seminary studying to become a minister one day. My faith is very important to me. And I was one of the most vocal critics of this bill in Texas that forces every public school teacher to display the 10 commandments in their classrooms, not only because it's unconstitutional, it violates the Establishment Clause in our First Amendment that prevents the state from establishing a state religion --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TALARICO: -- but also because it's un-Christian.

[23:55:01]

Jesus taught me and my fellow believers that we're supposed to love all of our neighbors as ourselves. We're supposed to love not just our Christian neighbors, but our Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist neighbors as well. And by forcing our religion down their throats, we're not loving them. And, therefore, this kind of violation of the separation of church and state is also violating the teachings of Jesus Christ. COATES: I'll be very intrigued to see the fulsome response from others who will be hearing about this news undoubtedly. State Representative James Talarico, thank you.

TALARICO: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Hey, thank you all so much for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)