Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

DOJ Undermining its Credibility by its Handling of Epstein Files; Rep. Tony Gonzales Faces Affair Allegations; Pentagon Demands A.I. Company Loosens Safety Standards; Search for Nancy Guthrie Continues. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 25, 2026 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

They ask a great question, where were you while we were getting high? And I'm still waiting for an answer.

PHILLIP: Does it have to be strictly Rock and Roll?

RANTZ: It's called Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

(CROSSTALK)

DEMINGS: These people are on the list --

(CROSSTALK)

RANTZ: Yes, they're cheating. Come on.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: I think they should all be in there. I think you are all correct.

NAVARRO: How many can get in?

PHILLIP: Isn't it just one for this year?

NAVARRO: No, it's not just one, is it?

RANTZ: I don't --

PHILLIP: Oh, it's like, it's five this year. So maybe you guys will all be right and then we'll come back and we'll recap. All right everybody, thanks for being here. Thanks for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" is right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, here we go again. The DOJ steps on another mess of its own making. Why are FBI records of interviews with a Trump accuser missing from the Epstein files? Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna is here to weigh in on that. And the new pressure on A.G. Pam Bondi. Plus, Republican lawmaker Tony Gonzales digs in, accused of having an affair and sending graphic text to a staffer who later died by suicide. But he claims he's being blackmailed. And a flurry of activity at Nancy Guthrie's home, including people in suits. What were they after? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, the DOJ just can't stop stepping on a rake. At nearly every stage of the fallout over the Epstein files, the DOJ has managed to spotlight its own failures. Whether it's accidental or intentional or incompetent, I mean, any way you slice it, it's bad. And it's undercutting the DOJ's credibility when it needs it most.

Here's the newest mess it has created for itself. Dozens of files from the Epstein investigation, well, they appear to be missing. We're talking more than 90 records, not just routine administrative documents, their witness interviews. And three of those interviews are from a woman who accused a very high-profile name of sexual assault. That name, Donald Trump.

Here's what we know. This woman first called the FBI after Epstein was arrested in 2019. She told agents that Epstein had repeatedly abused her when she was starting around 13 years old. She also claimed that Trump sexually assaulted her decades ago.

Now, the president, as you know, has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein or any accuser. And the White House says the allegations against him are -- quote -- "false and sensationalist."

The DOJ put out its own statement this evening. Here it is. As with all documents that have been flagged by the public, the department is currently reviewing files within that category of the production. Should any document be found to have been improperly tagged in the review process and is responsive to the act, the department will of course publish it, consistent with the law.

So, a potential tagging problem. Except this isn't happening in a vacuum. It is actually part of a long line of unforced errors. That first rake goes back a year ago. And it was stepped on by the attorney general herself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients? Will that really happen?

PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That has been a directive by President Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Only for the DOJ and the FBI to put out that infamous case closed memo a few months later. It said no client list. And tried to put the kibosh on new investigations and the release of more documents. And then the pressure built until Congress forced the president to sign the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law. A key word, into law.

And then the next week, the DOJ blew the legally required deadline to release all the files. We only got a small fraction at first. It was six weeks later when more than three million were released. And when they were, well, that was a mess, too. Files redacted that should not have been. Files not redacted that should have been. Files taken offline only to be put back later. Rake after rake after rake.

And now, this, the missing witness interview files. Look, this is mind-boggling to me. I've been a federal prosecutor. I've been a lawyer at big law firms and private practice. And in both of those worlds, disclosure is the required deal. You hand over the good facts. You hand over the bad facts. That means the notes, the interviews, the police paperwork.

[23:05:00]

You got to disclose it. Even a witness who changed the story. You might be able to redact some information for security reasons or maybe according to some court order, but you err on the side of transparency, because if you don't, that case could very well be dismissed and justice denied to a victim by no fault of their own, but because of you. And the defense, they'll have a field day in front of a jury who they want to not believe in you.

And yes, the amount of document in the Epstein files is massive. I am no stranger to doc review. I have been that associate with mountains of boxes to review on a deadline. I've been the prosecutor with a hoard of documents to hand over to the defendant. Let me tell you a dirty little secret about being government lawyer. They may have the weight of United States name behind it, but they don't have a fraction of the money of private law firms at their disposal. They don't have the manpower of devoted associates. I'm not making excuses, but mistakes do happen. Just the reality.

But this, too, is the reality. The law, remember I told you that word, the law required disclosure. And the department that prosecutes people for breaking the law, well, they ought to follow it. And it wouldn't just matter or impact this case if you don't turn over documents or this investigation if you don't hand over what you're supposed to. It impacts every single time you want the Department of Justice to be trusted for any reason.

Starting us off, Republican member of the House Oversight Committee, Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna. Congresswoman, thank you for joining me this evening. I mean, you have heard, likely, the Department of Justice saying that they are looking into whether the files mentioning President Trump were improperly removed. Do you trust them to be transparent in that inquiry?

REP. ANNA PAULINA LUNA (R-FL): I have followed up on a number of occasions, similar, and they have been very forthcoming. I've actually talked directly to Todd Blanche. And so, I will personally be ensuring that that's followed through on.

But I would like to also state that I think that the files that we have currently under this administration are likely not the full files. I do believe that some were destroyed previously. And I say that because in January of last year when I was the only member of Congress that was pushing for the release of these files, we actually had a whistleblower come forward. I actually introduced legislation because of that. I even forwarded this finding to the FBI for investigation, that there was destruction of evidence. And so, it will probably require a longer segment.

But I will say that there have been redactions that we've come across. I've been -- I've looked at the files for a number of hours. Whenever we flag those files, they are immediately then unredacted. But here has -- and it does seem to be kind of an internal war going on even at the Department of Justice where they have the order. And then you have some of the attorneys that have been in charge of the reductions.

And so, we're doing everything that we can to deliver on transparency. But as you can see, Epstein and his involved network is quite extensive and involves a lot of people.

COATES: Well, congresswoman, that does not really inspire confidence if you believe files have been destroyed, that transparency is not complete if it's not been thorough. How can the American public, who are not privy to what you say you've seen, who do not have access to files, how can they be confident that the attorney general, Bondi, leading this charge, or others who are in charge of providing documents, that they really will do so in the interest of justice?

LUNA: Well, I think that for starters, you have a bipartisan oversight committee actually working to cover -- not cover up but actually go into all of these, right? We're interviewing the Clintons tomorrow.

But to be clear, I mean, the destruction of evidence occurred under previous administrations. And that in itself, if you look at the network that was involved with Jeffrey Epstein, I mean, to think that there aren't shady things happening in your government, I think would just be a lie to the American people. The fact is that we did have someone come forward. They did say that there was destruction of evidence under the former deputy director of the FBI.

And even if you're looking at the original plea deals that Jeffrey Epstein was given, you know, when he was first charged and then also to more recently when he then committed suicide in New York, I mean, he should have never gotten off, he should have never had his sentences dropped down to the way that he did. And there are marks of intelligence surrounding this as well, whether it was foreign or, you know, our own. But I don't think that we're ever going to get the full picture.

And so, I think that when you're talking about this story as a whole, these things, we try to be transparent. I'm telling to the American people directly on my social media what I'm finding out as we learn them. But I think the Jeffrey Epstein case in itself will kind of go down in history as one of those things that we might not fully ever get the answers on.

[23:09:57]

What I will tell you is that even though, initially, I was very, very critical and very, very pressuring of the attorney general, I have since in the name of this investigation had many conversations. And I was actually able to also recently secure one of the files for the victims that had been denied previously under multiple administrations to include Biden, her files, so that she could actually go through therapy and actually get the help that she needed regarding recovering from all of these. And so --

COATES: Could you -- are you saying, congresswoman --

LUNA: -- there are efforts that are being done by members of Congress working with the DOJ.

COATES: Excuse me. So, I hear you. Are you suggesting that the attorney general, with you, has been personally transparent, that we don't have the documents otherwise? You understand my confusion as to the inconsistency of whether --

LUNA: Yes.

COATES: -- they, in fact, are transparent because, you know, I interview survivors frequently. I've been following the story, as you well know. I know we're going to hear from the Clintons appearing before your committee this week as well. Chairman Comer has said that no one is accusing the Clintons of any wrongdoing. He's had a lot of questions for them. But one of the big questions that people have that maybe could be answered in general is if they had access to the full trove of documents. What questions do you have?

LUNA: What I will tell you is I'm going to be asking them names. From the beginning, we've been asking them for names of people that engaged in the trafficking and the assault of minors. That is the sole focus. I think in point of this investigation also, if there is any other criminal misconduct and wrongdoing.

Part of the reason why you're seeing some of the redactions and some of the most egregious emails that I've actually started to post about, some of those women, they were listed on the FBI document as co- conspirators and the only one sitting in prison is Ghislaine Maxwell. But there are other men who were also involved. And so, the question is, why were they then given these plea deals and these sentences? In my opinion, they let them go. Why did they let them go?

COATES: Well, congresswoman, hold on, excuse me, I don't want to cut you off but --

LUNA: Yes.

COATES: -- is -- you are interviewing the -- that's what you want from the Clintons? Aren't those questions you have from the DOJ and the documents? Do you think that the Clintons would be able to give that information to you as opposed to, say, the actual DOJ?

LUNA: Yes. I think that, you know, the DOJ, we can see the names, right? I've seen some of the co-conspirators listed. And that's actually what I was saying about, you know, why were they given these plea deals. But I do believe, and to be clear, look, I don't agree with Secretary Clinton, but I don't think that she is as closely associated with this as Bill Clinton is. And even then, I understand that no one is criminally accusing them of anything. But I do think that if you are around certain people, you will see people show up, and you'll see them do things. And so, I do think that Bill Clinton specifically is someone who I have personal interest in seeing if he knows or can name people because as of right now, we have not received a list of names from the attorneys representing some of the victims. I also know that there's a current lawsuit with Deutsche Bank. And so, I also understand the legality surrounding that.

But we are looking for there to be justice because as of right now, it seems that there is a two-tier justice system in this country because of the fact that some of these people were given the plea deals that they were. To be clear, though, I want to specify that this was under the previous administration. And I will call it out for what it is, in that the first plea deals were given under the Bush administration. Why were they giving this guy the plea deals that they were? They should be held in, you know, and brought in for questioning as well. And so, you know, as we continue --

COATES: Certainly.

LUNA: -- to sort through all of these, I just find that the best way is to share the information publicly. And so, that's what we've been trying to do.

COATES: Do you share that for -- I mean, former President Bill Clinton, obviously, no longer in office. Would you share the same opinion in terms of President Trump when he leaves office at all to actually talk about this very issue and answer the same questions people may have?

LUNA: I mean, I think President Trump has been pretty transparent as is, though. He actually publicly posted on his social media. And also, too, you know, I've talked with him about it, and he has been very transparent about it.

COATES: What has he said to you?

LUNA: And to be clear, I think -- I mean, I've told him directly that he -- that A, this is the right thing to do, and he agrees. And then also, too, though, he said, I have nothing to hide. And I think that that's evident in that he passed this law. But I want to also point out the fact that we actually asked victims directly if the president currently, President Trump, was involved, and they've all exonerated him.

And so, what I never liked about this from the beginning is because I was literally in January this past year, the only member of Congress pushing on this issue because of my task force. And it seemed at some point that it did become partisan. And as you're seeing, this is a bipartisan issue. There have been many politicos, many rich and powerful on both sides that have been photoed with Jeffrey Epstein at his island, whatever it might have been. And the point is that there is a differentiating factor. A, did someone actually engage in criminal wrongdoing? B, were they simply in the wrong place at the wrong time? But then also this aspect of you have the American people not trust government, and that's why we need transparency on it and that's why we're conducting the investigations that we are.

[23:15:00]

COATES: So, would you support President Trump testifying about this issue to Congress publicly?

LUNA: I mean, I think -- I think President Trump signed the executive order. So, I think that to bring him in after the fact would just be nothing more than partisanship, I think, at this point. I mean, he literally signed the executive order.

COATES: But that doesn't suggest --

LUNA: He has gone forward. He has been exonerated by the victims.

COATES: I hear you. Well, I hear you in that he has spoken to you, and he has not been accused of wrongdoing in this context. That is correct. But you talked about the idea of people coming forward to answer questions based on association and illuminating a particular issue. Wouldn't that actually behoove President Trump to at least discuss this publicly? I know he has posted on social media. He has been very vocal about believing that the country should move on from the Epstein files. But wouldn't it be additive to hear him discuss his concern given that he has signed this law?

LUNA: I mean, I think a discussion is one thing, but I think when you're sending a subpoena, it's an entirely different thing. And I think given the nature of, you know, the bipartisan subpoena that was sent out of house oversight, that was a motion that was brought forward.

And the reason why I think some of the members felt that that was necessary is because there were questions about some of the stuff coming out regarding the files. We actually did specifically, though, ask the victims if President Trump was involved, and they did essentially exonerate him. Not to mention, he was also exonerated within the files and actually was working with law enforcement to put Jeffrey Epstein behind bars.

And so, the clear distinction I'm trying to make here is that you did have a tip line. The tip line had a number of things come in. Some were credible, some were not.

There was actually legal followup with the FBI from some of the documentation that I have seen. Granted, I haven't gone through all three million files, but what I will say is just as you can't say, you know, Secretary Clinton was, you know, doing horrendous things to some of these victims. I think you cannot say in the same sense that President Trump is doing the same thing because, you know, you have accusations, but what do the facts say and the victims themselves have exonerated the president.

COATES: Well, I guess we'll reserve judgment until all three million files have been reviewed, including the ones that were removed. But an inquiry is just that, congresswoman. And I think it is helpful for the American people not to be accusatory but to be illuminating on this issue. Congresswoman, please stand by. I've got another big story I want to talk to you about in just a few minutes, OK?

But I want to bring in an Epstein survivor who says she was just 14 years old when she met Jeffrey Epstein. Marian Lacerda was identified as "minor victim 1" in the 2019 federal indictment against Jeffrey Epstein, and she joins us now. I mean, Marina, first of all, what's your reaction and your thoughts hearing the congresswoman describe the idea of transparency here?

MARINA LACERDA, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: You know, I think that we first need to ask -- I don't know what victims she has asked about Trump. None of the victims -- I should speak maybe just for myself. I am very close with the victims. None of the victims have been asked about Donald Trump. That's number one I like to say.

And when we say that she said there's a tip line, why are we even going to the tip line if there are six pages of allegations that Donald Trump is in there? We need to be investigating those six pages. And maybe they're not the victims that stand by me, right? That are beside me. Maybe these are new victims that we haven't, you know, investigated or asked the right questions. I think that's what we need to be asking here.

COATES: You know, one of the things that has been very clear in our conversation and with other survivors has been that it's the quest for information. I think there's always this perception. We talk about the Transparency Act and what's going on. And I often hear people say, well, Donald Trump, Donald Trump. But my impression has always been that you want answers about whoever was involved. It does not begin and end with a discussion of one person. Is it true that you want to have the information more broadly or are you solely focused on whether it implicates the president?

LACERDA: I agree with you. It is everybody. There's a lot of names out there. There's a lot of prominent names that are out there, right? And I think we are reading the same files here, if I'm not mistaken. And when we read these things, we have to ask ourselves, have we really, really looked into this and started questioning these prominent people who are, you know, in these files? And I don't think we've gone even an inch close to it.

And when we look around other countries, Europe is bringing down monarchies. They're doing everything. I was just in Norway. We have Princess Marit answering to these questions. She is a princess. There is a royal family there. They are doing everything they can.

What are we doing here in America? We are continuing to protect the rich and the powerful. And they will continue to do the same thing that they have done before, which is abuse and traffic women and men as well. [23:19:58]

We have to look at ourselves and say, we are the United States of America, we believe in justice. We need to -- we need to really, really work together, united, not just the victims, all Americans, and we need to ask for transparency here.

COATES: Why do you think the United States is falling behind other countries in the way they have investigated this?

LACERDA: Well, you know, I really want to say what's on my mind, but I'm going to hold back over here. But at the end of the day, America -- you know, being at the State of the Union yesterday, I got to see a lot. And what I seen was a whole division, right? You have the rich and the powerful, and then you have people fighting for the middle class. And that is sad.

So, when you look at that rich and the powerful people, they don't care. They don't care about human trafficking. They don't care if groceries are affordable. They don't care about health care. You know why? Because they are getting what they need. But when you have middle class and you have struggling mothers and family who cannot do it, they don't care about that.

So, it goes to say, again, it's not, you know, only about the Epstein files where the rich and the powerful are covering up. We are covering up for health care system, we are covering up for mortgage rates, for rent. People cannot afford this in America. And this is the place where everybody wants to be. And now, we're starting to think, is this really where we want to be today? In the United States of America, the land of free, where we believe in justice? Are we really serving this year? I believe we're not.

COATES: Marina, I think that's one of the reasons people have been so deeply invested in what's happening, because they see this as illustrative of the haves and the have-nots and the powerful getting away with whatever they want. Thank you for joining us.

LACERDA: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead tonight, he has been accused of having had an affair and sending explicit text to a former aide who ended up taking her own life. Republican Congressman Tony Gonzales defiant and refusing to step down. His colleague, Congresswoman Luna, has a lot to say about this. She'll be back with me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The pressure is growing for Texan Republican Congressman Tony Gonzales to step down. He's facing allegations that he had an affair with a former staffer who later killed herself. That former staffer's husband, Adrian Aviles, spoke to my colleague, Erin Burnett, this evening.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADRIAN AVILES, LATE WIFE HAD ALLEGED AFFAIR WITH REP. TONY GONZALES: I'm not saying he's the one that went out there and did it himself, and I'm not saying that. But yes, he played a role in it. I just released a tip of the iceberg of the things that this man was telling her. I released just what was, you know, enough information for the people to understand who this person and who they were dealing with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Aviles also released alleged sexual and explicit text between Gonzales and his late wife. In one text message, Gonzales allegedly writes, "then send me a sexy pic." She replies, "I swear my life has been a telenovela for the past seven days. You don't really want a hot picture of me." Gonzales allegedly responds, "yes, I do. Hurry."

Now, Congressman Gonzales remains defiant and claims he's being blackmailed. Some of his Republican colleagues want him to be held accountable, including Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, who is back with me now. Congressman, thank you for remaining with us. I'm really curious on your thoughts because you say that you would kick him out of office. Why?

LUNA: Yes, I would expel him if I had the votes to do this tomorrow, if I could. But the fact is that what will happen is I will file the motion for expulsion, and then they will threaten to expel a Democrat member who was recently accused of stealing $5 million in FEMA funds. And so, the establishment and the parties will protect their own. And so, it will be a net wash. But what I can do is censor him, and I'm going to potentially be doing that and filing that next week.

I want to apologize on behalf of the House of Representatives to that husband that you just had on. I think what Representative Gonzales did was abhorrent and it does not reflect the values of the Republican Party.

But I also want to be really clear, I have a lot of young women staffers that work for me, and to see the way that he was talking to this woman, to see the way that he was pushing himself on her, and then ultimately what happened as a result of that, you know, we now have a child without a mother, we have an individual who's bringing shame upon the House of Representatives, and I refuse to accept that within my own party and not call it out.

And so, that's why we've been so vocal. It hasn't just been myself. It has been a number of my other colleagues who have called for him to either not seek election or resign. And I ultimately think, as a result of this, the voters in Texas will decide to send someone else to Washington to represent them.

COATES: I mean, the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, called the allegations detestable. But he won't pressure him to resign. He says that due process needs to play out in this. Do you think that it's premature to have him step aside until a complete investigation has occurred or is there enough there that you think he should be impacted?

LUNA: I think there's enough there for him to be impacted. But let me just tell, I guess, the viewers how it works with these investigations. House ethics is where things go to die when they want to brush things under the rug. It happens on both sides of the aisle. OK? They said that they would release his findings and reports a day after his election was over. And so, essentially, what they'll do is basically drop all the findings that we know are true, we know he's guilty of it, and they're going to wait for the election process to play out.

[23:30:02]

And that's disingenuous. It happens all the time. And if I told you the number of things that you see in Washington, you would probably be shocked. But again, the swamp will protect its own. And they're going to say the same thing about the Democrat, Sheila McCormick, who stole $5 million from FEMA funds. They'll say we have to wait for the process because we can't expel. But we know that they both did wrong. We know that they shouldn't be in office.

There's another Republican that I would like to do that, too, but I, again, don't have the votes. But what I can do is I can call them out by name, and I have been. And I hope that people understand that this is unacceptable. It's inexcusable. Tony, you did wrong. Shame on you. And I think that you're going to lose your election as a result of it, and rightfully so.

COATES: Well, we'll see how these allegations continue. I do completely agree in extending the sympathies, of course, to this family and what she must -- her family must have been going through still to this day with her loss of life. Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, thank you so much for joining me.

The next story, well, it sounds like the plot of a "Terminator" spinoff, except it's not fiction. The Pentagon is telling A.I. company Anthropic to let them use their tech for anything they deem legally necessary. Well, Anthropic, they're pushing back. But can it actually win this fight? Kara Swisher is standing by to join me on that tonight.

And later, the Nancy Guthrie crime scene, well, it just got visited by the suits. So, who were they? And why now? And what were they looking at nearly a month after she was taken?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Here's a question for all of you at home right now. Do you believe A.I. should be able to operate weapons? What about using A.I. to potentially spy on U.S. citizens? That sound OK? Well, tonight, a source tells CNN that these questions are at the heart of an ongoing feud between the Pentagon and one of the country's leading A.I. innovators, Anthropic.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has given the company until Friday to lift guardrails that they placed on its A.I. model, Claude, or risk losing their $200 million government contract, even threatening to put Anthropic on what's basically a blacklist. But a source tells CNN that, so far, Anthropic isn't budging on those two red lines, A.I.- controlled weapons and mass domestic surveillance.

Now, a Pentagon official has denied that the conflict has anything to do with those two issues. The source is saying all they want is to be able to use Claude without restrictions for -- quote -- "all lawful use."

Joining me now, CNN contributor and host of the "On" and "Pivot" podcasts, Kara Swisher, also the author of the bestseller, "Burn Book: A Tech Love Story." And we love her, so we're glad that you're here. So, tell me, Kara --

KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, OPINION CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: Hey, Laura.

COATES: -- how concerned are you about these threats the Pentagon is making towards a private company?

SWISHER: Well, there has been a lot of this of the Trump administration, whether it's dealing with Intel or inserting itself in the Netflix, Paramount, Warner deal or whatever. They seem to want to be part of what should be private business.

Now, Anthropic has a deal with the Pentagon. And so, they want to sell their wares like a lot of people, right? Whether it's jets or whatever the Pentagon happens -- whatever the government is buying. But in this case, they're worried about a couple of things, how this technology is deployed, and one of them has to do with surveillance, and the other has to do with autonomous weapons. And they're well within their rights to say, we don't want you to use it for this without human intervention or we don't want it to be used for this. Now, other tech companies have agreed to let the Pentagon do whatever they want.

And so, the question is, do they have to do business with each other? Anthropic is basically saying, we don't want to do business with you if you use our products in a way we don't like. And the Pentagon is saying, you couldn't tell us what to do with the products as long as it's legal. And so, it's a face off. I think probably Anthropic will pull its business from the Pentagon and vice versa, will be my guess.

COATES: And, of course, the face off, they had to trust that one will actually use it if they remove those guardrails in the way that they've actually said. So, trust is a big issue here.

SWISHER: Correct.

COATES: And, as you know, Anthropic was founded by former members of OpenAI who were concerned about A.I. safety. But tonight, we're learning that the company is ditching one of its main safety promises, which was to pause training on A.I. -- SWISHER: Yes.

COATES: -- models that they could no longer control. Now, a source says this is unrelated to ongoing discussions with the Pentagon. So, are there any tech companies still left making safety a priority when it comes to A.I.?

SWISHER: Well, they're more of a priority. They're still doing testing and all kinds of things more than other companies. It's just a question of that AI models are changing so quickly, they think it's an antiquated way of being safe. They are selling themselves on safety.

They're actually sort of the dark horse of all these companies. Many people think that they're going to be the biggest one at some point because of their focus on safety. It's very appealing to the enterprise.

To me, they don't have to do business with the pentagon. They'll do plenty of business with companies that really value this kind of thinking. It's a little like thinking about Apple versus a Google. You know, Apple focused in on privacy. Google and Meta did not. And so, people make -- customers make their choices on the kind of technology they want to use. Claude is betting that if they look more responsible, they won't -- they will do better in the private sector, presumably.

But, you know, if they don't want their stuff to be used that way, they don't have to sell it to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon shouldn't try to strong arm by threatening them, which is what Pete Hegseth is doing.

COATES: How about the underlying issue of even the Pentagon's request to have this sort of carte blanche?

[23:40:00]

Does that concern you?

SWISHER: Well, their argument is that like when Lockheed sells them a jet or whatever, they're not telling them how to use the plane, right? That would be their argument.

But this is very different. This is -- that's kind of -- well, it's typical, what Pete Hegseth would use as a comparison. It's not the same comparison. These systems are really problematic. And one of the things Claude is concerned about, I mean, the people at Anthropic concern is these are not perfect systems. What if it did do something wrong?

And, you know, you've seen time after time that these LLMs have hallucination, all manner of things. I think there was just a test the other day where all the AIs recommended a nuclear strike as the best option. You know, it's like you're in middle of that movie "War Games," right? Like, oh, it probably is the best option. It's just not an option that a human would pick. And so, that's -- I think it's fine for Anthropic to decide this. But the Pentagon, if they don't, then just don't do business. But they're threatening to put them on a blacklist, supply chain. I think it's called a supply chain restriction or whatever. And that means they can't do business with other parts of the government or companies that do business with the government can't do business with Anthropic. To me, that's Putin-esque, as far as I can tell. They should just part ways.

COATES: It's recipe for capitulation, if that kind of pressure is really mounted.

SWISHER: No. It's just -- this is not -- I mean, I'm sorry, the Republican Party used to be allowing businesses to do what they want to do, right? It was a much different party and not as -- this is -- this feels Putin-esque. I don't know what else to say. That's what it feels like to me. I mean, that's not the way companies like Anthropic got going, was the idea of innovation and private sector being able to do what they wanted. They should be able to do what they want.

COATES: Well, the head of the Republican Party last night, Donald Trump, the president of United States, did mention A.I. He put forth a plan to make A.I. companies pay for their own energy costs. But he didn't address some of the key anxieties people have in terms of job losses or security threats when it comes to A.I.

SWISHER: Yes.

COATES: Was that a missed opportunity?

SWISHER: Yes. I mean, he's supposed to be the A.I. president. I thought he would talk about it more. He's just talking about energy costs. You know, obviously, this takes an enormous amount of energy. And they're working on those problems. Eventually, those will get solved.

But I think he should have spent a lot more time talking about people's worries about job loss. If he's going to be the A.I. president, you've got to be the 360 A.I. president where you're talking about retraining and figuring out what to do. And if you're for A.I., and I think A.I. is going to be very groundbreaking for a lot of us and a lot of businesses, you have to also talk about the possible fallout. And, of course, he doesn't want to talk about that because everything is up and to the right. But that's not how this kind of thing works.

COATES: Kara Swisher, thank you.

SWISHER: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Still ahead, who are these suits looking inside and outside Nancy Guthrie's home? Anything to do with that new million-dollar reward? Plus, the Cajun Navy is now on the ground in Tucson to join the search. The commander leading the effort will join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, a new search, a new award, and a new round of tips in the abduction case of Nancy Guthrie. Today, our team witnessed the most activity we've seen in a week at Nancy Guthrie's home in Tucson. Several people in suits appeared to search it for hours. We saw them outside, and they also went inside. It comes 24 hours after Nancy's daughter and "Today" show co-host Savannah Guthrie offered $1 million reward to find her mother. The FBI says that offer led to hundreds of new and credible tips for 25 days after Nancy Guthrie was kidnapped. Police still don't know where she is nor do they know who took her.

We'll talk more about these new developments with CNN law enforcement contributor and retired FBI supervisory special agent Steve Moore. Steve, it's good to see you.

STEVE MOORE, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRIBUTOR, RETIRED FBI SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT: Good to see you.

COATES: We don't know what agency or department people were from, but some are tied to the investigation in some way. Why would they return to Nancy's home at this stage, do you think?

MOORE: You know, I don't know why somebody in suits would be there. It could be that they are bringing assistant United States attorneys out to familiarize them with the evidence that they found, the evidence that's obvious and visible, so that going forward in prosecution, they have seen the property before it is released to -- released to the public essentially or to whoever takes custody of it.

But it seems to me, because of the way they're dressed, what they were doing, you know, if you were doing a search, you'd still be out in those cargo pants and the polos that they wear. For them to be there in suits to me says that it was more of an evidentiary or a meeting- type.

COATES: Normally, the AUSAs would get involved when there's a suspect with an eye towards a trial. But perhaps they are trying to preserve before they hand over the property back to the family again.

MOORE: Exactly.

COATES: I mean, the FBI says it has received more than 750 credible tips after Savannah and her family offered $1 million to find their mom and $500,000 also in support of other missing persons as well, which I think was really important. A source told CNN that the family wanted to offer it sooner, but that law enforcement worried that it would inundate the tip line. Should they have allowed them to offer something like that sooner?

MOORE: I think that if you offer that too soon, like in the first week or so, what you would get is a massive amount all at once. It would be a log jam and you wouldn't be able to process them.

[23:50:02]

So, any good leads that you got would be buried in, you know, hundred thousand or 10,000 leads. And what they want to do is go through in a progression when it gets to a certain point you say we have nothing to lose at this point, we will get inundated, but it's -- we've got to -- we've got to do whatever we can.

COATES: In her most recent video, she acknowledges that her mother may no longer be with us. But she holds out extraordinary hope. Has this case gone cold?

MOORE: No, it has not gone cold, Laura, but it's certainly not hot right now. They have nothing obvious for them to do at this point. And I just want to point out that Savannah Guthrie, in the way she held herself, the way she cooperated with law enforcement, the way she has accepted their recommendations, these are things you don't see in the FBI very much. It shows her strength and it shows her courage in this. And she has made the investigation so much more efficient and so much more worthwhile.

COATES: A loving daughter. Steve Moore, thank you.

MOORE: Thank you.

COATES: The Guthrie family is not giving up hope and neither are the volunteers who are searching for Nancy Guthrie. My next guest usually searches disaster zones for the missing. But now, he's joining in the search for Nancy. With me now, Josh Gil, incident commander for the United Cajun Navy. Josh, thank you for coming on tonight. I understand you've already conducted some searches with other volunteer groups. Can you tell us what you've found so far, if anything?

JOSH GIL, VOLUNTEER, INCIDENT COMMANDER FOR UNITED CAJUN NAVY: Yes, ma'am. Thank you for having me. First of all, we went out to a location that had some freshly-disturbed earth. Went there. Didn't find anything of significance. Did find some items that we did report into local sheriff's office.

COATES: How --

GIL: I rather not discuss what we found, but we did. Go ahead.

COATES: I was going to ask you how they received the information. Did they take it into account? Are they currently evaluating it?

GIL: So, we sent a picture with latitude and longitude to the sheriff's office. They did receive it. What they did with that information, I'm not privy to.

COATES: Josh, why did you decide to join in this search now?

GIL: So, we've been watching it, of course, as a lot of people have been, and really tugs at our heartstrings. We had just left Oklahoma from the fires, had the opportunity to come here and meet face to face -- you know, that was the plan, to meet face to face with law enforcement to see how we could integrate into their operation and provide some additional resources.

COATES: Can you describe what those resources are like? I know you've searched for people in massive disasters in the past. The floods in Texas is just one example. What are those techniques or technology that you're using to try to find Nancy?

GIL: Sure. So, we've got available -- again, keyword being available -- to local law enforcement drones with thermal capabilities as well as specific canine capabilities. And when I say specific, we have sent specific as well as HRD canines, both land and water canines. It's part of our team. We've also got subject matter experts in the search and rescue search and recovery field.

COATES: Why did you emphasize, you know, available? Meaning you don't actually operate those drones? You just provide them? What do you mean?

GIL: So, our team does operate those. We've got a network of resources. When I say available, again, we fall under the command and control of the local law enforcement. We don't self-deploy into any disasters. What we want to do is make sure that we are invited in by law enforcement. And we have given an operational plan to local law enforcement, to the Pima County Sheriff's Department.

COATES: Do you have the sense that they are happy that you're helping, that you are getting deployed according to them? Are you on the sidelines? What has been your experience?

GIL: So, right now, we are standing back, waiting to communicate further with them on the operational plan that we provided. Again, it's a plan. And what we want to do is make sure that, if accepted, we can operationalize that plan quickly.

COATES: Can you share the details of that plan?

GIL: Certainly. I can give you a little bit of it. As far as team resources that are available, as I discussed, boots on the ground, additional people looking, searching, as well as drones with thermal capabilities, and then the canines that we have available.

COATES: Josh Gill, thank you.

GIL: Thank you, ma'am.

COATES: Remember the tip line to call for information that helps investigators find Nancy Guthrie is 1-800-CALL-FBI.

[23:55:00]

COATES: You can also go to the website tips.fbi.gov. Thank you all so much for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I'm Elex Michaelson live in Los Angeles. Ahead this hour. The story is stopping war. We are hours away from high-stake talks between the U.S. and Iran.

[00:00:00]

The story is conflict off the Cuba Coast. Cuban government killing multiple people in a boat. The details just coming in.