Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Gabbard Won't Say if Iran Posed "Imminent Threat"; U.S. Weighs Sending Troops in War's Next Phase; Ex-Trump Intel Official Breaks Silence; Mullin Faces Tough Confirmation Hearing. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 18, 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]

UNKNOWN (voice-over): You can see why that would appeal to him. He was a young lawyer. And the FBI was this kind of star celebrity agency during those years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: More this Sunday at 9 p.m. on CNN and the next day on the CNN app. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a contradiction on two fronts. Intel Chief Tulsi Gabbard and the official who just quit in protest undercut some of President Trump's main justifications for the war with Iran. Plus, are boots on the ground getting closer to reality or what? A new report says the administration is weighing sending thousands of troops to the Middle East, and one option is to send them to Iran's shoreline. And the tense confirmation hearing for DHS hopeful Markwayne Mullin that kicked off with a direct challenge from his fellow senator. Tell me to my face. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, President Trump has thrown out a laundry list of justifications for the war with Iran. But the top intel official who quit in protest is speaking out tonight and directly refuting what the president of the United States has said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TUCKER CARLSON, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: Was Iran on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon?

JOE KENT, FORMER DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER: No, they weren't, you know, three weeks ago when this started, and they weren't in June either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's huge because Joe Kent is undercutting what Trump and his team had been saying all along. I mean, before and after the start of this war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They attempted to rebuild their nuclear program.

We wiped it out, and they want to start all over again. And at this moment, again pursuing their sinister ambitions.

STEVE WITKOFF, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY: They're probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, here's the thing: Joe Kent, let's just say he's a problematic messenger. He's a guy with previous ties to white nationalists and a vowed January 6th conspiracy theorist. So, let's take another messenger, shall we?

How about his former boss, the director of National Intelligence herself, Tulsi Gabbard? Now, she testified in front of Senate Intel committee today, and she wrote this in her opening remarks: "As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability." To repeat, no efforts to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. But curiously, she didn't actually read that out in the hearing, which caught the attention of Senator Mark Warner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): You omitted that paragraph from your oral opening. Was that because the president said there was an imminent threat two weeks ago?

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Sir, I recognized that the time was running long, and I skipped through some of the portions of my oral delivered remarks.

WARNER: You chose to omit the parts that can contradict the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Someone doesn't want to be long-winded at a congressional hearing? Senator Jon Ossoff didn't let it slide either.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): Was it the Intelligence Community's assessment that nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a -- quote -- "imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.? Yes or no?

GABBARD: It is not the Intelligence Community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.

OSSOFF: OK. GABBARD: That is up to the president, based on a volume of information that he received.

OSSOFF: No, it is precisely -- it is precisely your responsibility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, for the record, this was a hearing on worldwide threats. She had no problem laying out other threats assessed by the Intelligence Community. But the nuclear issue, that wasn't the only contradiction. There's another justification that Trump has also leaned on. He has repeatedly claimed Iran was soon going to have missiles that could hit the U.S. mainland. But Gabbard? Let's just say she's working from a different timeline.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: They're working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.

GABBARD: The IC assesses that Iran has previously demonstrated space launch and other technology it could use to begin to develop a militarily viable ICBM before 2035 should Tehran attempt to pursue that capability.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, Trump's soon and Gabbard's before 2035, I mean, those different calendars, right?

[23:05:00]

But whatever Trump's actual motivations are, it seems like an off-ramp is proving difficult to find because Reuters is reporting tonight, the administration is weighing whether to deploy thousands of troops to the Middle East. And one of the places they could go? Multiple sources tell Reuters they could be sent to Iran's shoreline.

Starting us off tonight, former associate counsel to President George W. Bush, Jamil Jaffer, he was the lead architect of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, and retired brigadier general, Steve Anderson. Glad to have both of you here to help. Makes sense of what's happening for the audience.

Jamil, let me ask you, because Gabbard, she avoided answering whether Iran posed an imminent threat, but said there would be a nuclear threat before 2035. People are picking up on this distinction, this contradiction between what the Intel Community is saying and the White House. How do you see it?

JAMIL JAFFER, FORMER ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GEORGE W. BUSH, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTE AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: Well, I think the challenge for Tulsi Gabbard is that she doesn't support this war. That much has been clear from the jump. She is trying to avoid saying what Joe Kent said, which is he didn't think there was a cause for war here. She thinks the same thing, but realize she has to play with the White House and abide by the president's viewpoint. So, she said, well, it's the president's choice to determine what threat is imminent.

Now, look, Iran has been killing Americans by the hundreds for dozens of years. They have been going after us for years upon end. They do pose a threat. They've killed Americans with ballistic missiles in the region.

COATES: An ongoing or an imminent threat?

JAFFER: Both. An ongoing is imminent. If you hit, if you punch me in the face yesterday, you punch me in face day before that and the day before that, tomorrow, it's an imminent threat. Now, just because I didn't do anything about it for last three days, like President Obama, like President Biden, and like President Trump the first time didn't do anything about it, doesn't mean it's not imminent today.

COATES: I wonder, because the Intel Community, general, believes the Iranian regime is still intact albeit largely degraded is the phrase that we often hear. But -- but, of course the airstrikes. Given that, how long could this war last if regime change is frankly an objective?

BRIG. GEN. STEVE ANDERSON, RETIRED BRIGADIER GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: Laura, this war is going to last, I think, a long time. I mean, it could last for a very, very long time. The problem is that the IRGC is intact. And even Tulsi Gabbard said today that they are intact. The regime is intact. And as long as that happens, these people are going to keep fighting.

I mean, I remember what Andy Rooney said 30 years ago on "60 Minutes." There's no fanatic like a religious fanatic. The country is full of religious fanatics. The IRGC, 200,000 religious fanatics, and they're fighting for their lives. They know that if they are overthrown, if the regime changes in any way, they're likely going to be killed. So, they're fighting. It's an existential threat to them. So, they have hunkered down. They're trying to wait us out.

And I want to use another quote. You know, Henry Kissinger said in Vietnam that America loses if they don't win, and Vietnam wins if they don't lose. The exact same thing is true here. Iran will win by not losing, and that's what they're trying to do.

COATES: Waiting us out. That's a timeline that's quite the gamble.

JAFFER: It is. But the real truth is we know the president is getting tired of this war already. He said it a number of times. House Republican Conference just last week, he says it's going to be a short war, we're going to be done with it soon. You know, matter of weeks. He has talked about it for weeks at the outside.

Clearly, I think Jamil is right, that this is going to go on longer. But the question is, what is -- what is an end state look like? What is the president wants to achieve?

At the outset, he said the Iranian people to rise up, take back their government. We're not anywhere near that. And the nuclear program, we're not close to that. So, we're going to eliminate ballistic missiles. We're getting better on that, although still have a lot of missiles that have launchers. Navy, we've done pretty well. And then their ability to foment terror. We're not very far along on that. Yes, Israel has taken a lot of Hezbollah operatives, but their ability to foment terror from home is still very much present.

COATES: What about the reporting from Reuters that the administration is weighing, deploying thousands of more troops, thousands of more troops? And one of the potential options apparently is securing the Strait of Hormuz, which we know is the leverage that Iran is using right now for the global economy. That could also include, obviously, Iran's shoreline. So, what does that tell you given what, of course, Jamil and you are both talking about in terms of the length and the duration of this war, the idea of thousands of troops potentially being deployed?

ANDERSON: Yes, Laura. I mean, obviously, when you talk about boots on the ground, you're talking about extending this war tremendously. There's a couple of places. You know, 31st MEU from Okinawa is inbound, probably be there in another week. It could be used at Kharg Island, where they have the oil refineries and the oil shipping depot. They could also use the MEU because they conduct littoral operations, essentially amphibious operations, so they could use it on the coastline.

Now, remember, though, Iran has got a thousand miles of coastline. OK? So, there's a lot of places to hide. You know, that's like the entire West Coast, from California to Washington State. So, there's a lot of places they can hide, but they could conceivably put them in there.

[23:10:00]

The other thing that they've talked about using is putting boots on the ground to secure the nuclear sites.

COATES: Right.

ANDERSON: But I submit to you, the MEU is probably not the right element for that. You probably would be looking at the 160th SOAR, Special Operations Aviation Regiment, or maybe some kind of a special Delta Force operation. But, in any way, in any shape, you put boots on the ground, you're going to extend this war tremendously.

COATES: Does the American people have the appetite for that? I mean, boots on the ground is exactly what it seemed was campaigned that they did not want. And we've heard about the mandate from voters for the first part of the administration's second term. Is the appetite there? Are the resources there to sustain a thousand-mile coastline, shoreline, extended almost indefinite war?

JAFFER: No, no, no. There is one exception to that. And the president showed in Venezuela, you could put boots on the ground for a brief period, Special Forces operation go in, take care of business, pull them out. If the president can message what he plans to do, whether it's around Kharg Island, Bandar Abbas, at the Strait of Hormuz or something like that, or even as a targeted narrow operation alongside these Special Forces to go in and secure nuclear sites, extract that highly-enriched uranium, maybe address some centrifuges that are there, you can see a sit-around under which the president is able to convince the American people that and get away with that, right?

I think any sustained operation in Kharg Island likely be sustained, likely sustained casualties. Same thing at Bandar Abbas. Very difficult to uphold. And any substantial deployment, almost impossible to survive politically, at least.

COATES: Iranian state media says that Israel attacked a natural gas field, an energy lifeline for Iran, as you know. And tonight, the president is denying that the United States knew anything about that strike, and posts on Truth Social, "No more attacks will be made by Israel pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field." You can say that if Iran retaliates, the U.S. will blow up the entire gas field. Room for de-escalation?

ANDERSON: Yes. I mean, what they're trying to do, obviously, is put a hurt on the Iranian people to put pressure on the regime. You know, obviously. And, of course, the Iranians are trying to do the exact same thing in the GCC by leveraging attacks on their oil refineries and whatnot, putting pressure on them to put pressure on the United States to shut this thing down. So, obviously, this is going to be a tit for tat kind of a situation right now.

But, really, if you look at what's going on economically, I mean, Iran, despite the fact that they're being attacked, they're able to export more oil now through the Strait of Hormuz than they did before the war started. It's incredible because they're just letting the Chinese and the Indian oil tankers through. There are 700 oil tankers sitting out there in the Persian Gulf that are waiting to get through.

The escorts are inbound. When they get this escort mission going, it's going to take probably months to relieve that backlog and to get back to a hundred oil tankers flowing through there every day. So, this is going to be -- I mean, buckle up, Laura, we're going to be here for a long time talking about this.

COATES: My goodness. And Jamil, what do you make of the fact that the president is suggesting that there was no advance notice that he was aware of Israel's plans to attack this natural gas field?

JAFFER: I mean, it would be unusual. Israel and the United States have been coordinating very closely on this war. We've been telling them what we plan to do. They've been telling us what we plan to do -- what they plan to do.

At the same time, when they hit the oil depots, the president said the same thing. We didn't know what was going to happen. I've told them to cut it off. But if he told them once about the oil depots, surely, they knew. The natural gas fields, too. It wasn't confusing. They made decision to go forward with that, either with the president's knowledge or without. He announces, I told him not to it again. We'll see how long that lasts.

But the truth is, the U.S. benefits from pressure on the Iranian regime as well, right? We may not want it to happen over and over again, but that pressure matters. And that escalation, maybe it's an escalation, but the Iranians have to hit back. And so far, we're not seeing that.

COATES: Either scenario suggests quite a power dynamic between the two countries. We'll see. Jamil Jaffer, General Steve Anderson, thank you both.

Up next, more that -- more from that very revealing interview with the former Intel official who quit in protest of a Trump's war as he reveals what the president was not hearing before making the decision to strike.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENT: I think the circle that was around him was very, very tight and very small. And I think they were all in the same sheet of music.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Was Iran on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon?

KENT: No, they weren't, you know, three weeks ago when this started, and they weren't in June either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The president's former top counter-terror official is doubling down on claims he made in his resignation letter yesterday, where he argued Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States. Now, the administration disputes what Joe Kent is alleging. But as for who had the president's ear before the war began, Kent has said some voices with the administration were shut out from the decision-making.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENT: A good deal of key decision-makers were not allowed to come express their opinion to the president. There was robust debate and robust discussions leading up to the 12-day war into Midnight Hammer. But this second round to me, and I'm sure others will refute this and disagree with me, but what was conducted by just a handful of small advisors around the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Joining me now, former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence and Homeland Security advisor during Trump's first term, Olivia Troye. She also worked at the National Counterterrorism Center. Also here, former senior communications aide to Lindsey Graham and Mike Pompeo, T.W. Arrighi.

[23:20:00]

Glad to have both of you here. I'll begin with you, Olivia, because you resigned from the first Trump administration, and I wonder if you're surprised by Kent's comments that key decision makers, that's his phrase, could not voice their opinions to Trump.

OLIVIA TROYE, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY AND COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: You know, I found that interesting. I think, to me, this is kind of classic Trump circles, the way it works when you're making important decisions. Sometimes, people are in the room. Sometimes, get excluded out of the room, depending on who's pushing what viewpoint and what opinion or thought, you know, viewpoint they want.

So, I'm, you know, to hear someone like that say that on who wasn't in the room when you're making such a critically important decision on whether you're going to engage in conflict, global conflict, to me, that's appalling because you would think that you would want all the voices in the room to really debate such an issue and inform the president on all of the options and the repercussions of certain actions that you're going to take.

COATES: That's the point of a cabinet.

TROYE: Yes.

COATES: Where he takes the advice is a different story as commander- in-chief. But I want to play more of what Kent is claiming about whether this indeed was an imminent threat. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENT: There was no intelligence that said, hey, on whatever day it was, March 1st, the Iranians are going to launch this big sneak attack. They're going to do some kind of a 9-11 Pearl Harbor, et cetera. They're going to attack one of our bases. There was none of that intelligence. Again, back to what we know about the Iranians, they're very, very deliberate with the escalation ladder. And again, they're only deliberate under President Trump's leadership because they knew and they took President Trump very, very seriously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Do you see this as his claims directly undermining what the administration has said?

T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUSH DIGITAL GROUP, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM AND MIKE POMPEO: I don't know. Joe Kent is a combat veteran. He has earned the right to speak freely, and he can resign if he wants. That is fine. But as the previous guest pointed out, the Iranian threat has always been imminent. They act on it all the time. And I'm not really sure in the phraseology. This is, by the way, a gentleman who advocated for taking out their nuclear sites and their missile depots, who advocated this when he was running for office.

But I quarrel with the idea of what does an imminent nuclear threat look like. Are we waiting for the bomb to be on the launcher before we decide to take an action?

The fact of the matter is Steve Witkoff was told directly by the Iranians that they had a thousand pounds or more, 400 something kilograms of enriched uranium that were a hint away from being able to be put on a weapon, and that they had the inalienable right to enrich uranium.

So, the fact of the matter is this is a president who has made decisive action to bring Iran to its weakest point, to disrupt its proxies, to bring the Gulf states into a coalition with the Abraham Accords, and to bring the Middle East to a new chapter. This was absolutely the right time to act, and I'm sort of surprised that Joe Kent doesn't have the foresight to see that.

COATES: And yet, according to that logic, every single day at the Trump administration would have been a day that he could have proclaimed imminence. Even after last year, we were told that it had been obliterated in terms of the ability to have, at least in the short term, to have that nuclear capability.

But this idea of having dissenting voices or who could provide alternate information, alternate facts, I mean information of the intelligence community, Olivia, I mean, Trump has been quick to dismiss them, saying that he wasn't smart, he wasn't savvy for not believing that Iran posed a threat. But we noticed that Kent has been very careful to avoid personally attacking Trump, which I found interesting. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENT: I think we departed personally on good terms. Again, I'm an adult. I understand, the way I left and writing the letter, that there's parts of his administration that are going to have to come after me and try to discredit me. I understand that. But I think the president is someone who listens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He was just talking about -- people were not comfortable talking to him about it. This is something that I think you have a very unique perspective in terms of somebody who has voice and been vocal about things you disagree in an administration like this. How do you think the MAGA will see him in this interview?

TROYE: Well, you know, I think it is part of serving in the Trump administration when you have an opposing view and you're worried about voicing it because you're going to be shown the door. I mean, we saw Tulsi Gabbard today. She purposely skipped over parts of her testimony because she's walking a fine line now, because now she has someone that actually is her direct report, right? In the same building, by the way, NCTC exists with GNI, reporting to her, saying there was no imminent threat. And she's trying to figure out how she's going to navigate that dynamic when she's handling the president as the head of the Intelligence Community.

So, I also thought it was odd that she would take the line of like, you know, oh, it's up to the president to decide that eminent threat. I'm like, no, it is your job, Tulsi. It is your job. And so, I think one question that I have here in this whole situation is the head, the top counterterrorism official in the Trump administration has just left his slot.

[23:24:57]

That slot is vacant now. While we are under severe threat from counterterrorism because of Iran here domestically, we're seeing it overseas. Americans are under threat overseas because of the actions of this administration that they've decided to take. And so, now, we have a void in this slot. So, I think, you know, Joe Kent, look, I believe he was unqualified for the position.

COATES: Why, do you think?

TROYE: That's what I'm trying to figure out with him. Like, why this moment to speak out other than -- OK, two things can be true, right? He's an extremist and qualified for the job. But also, it can also be true that there was no imminent threat and he disagrees and felt like he wanted to come out and make this point of view made, like publicly.

COATES: You already hear about cracks within MAGA. You heard someone yesterday saying that MAGA was dead, but the idea of Trump's America First strategy is not in line with his actions taken in this war. And you see this being vocalized. So, look ahead for me as a strategist to the midterms and how this plays out. What do you see for Republicans?

ARRIGHI: Well, 80-something percent of Republicans agree with the president's actions. So, I think this MAGA thing is completely overblown. Yes, of course, you have the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world and now the Joe Kents who speak out against any intervention in any country regardless of the threat they pose. That's always going to exist. But the fact that it's -- the idea that it's widespread is completely overblown.

Look, this is clearly a different administration in terms of their foreign policy viewpoints than the first time around. And heavy is the head that wears the presidency. And the president needs to, just like Jefferson before him and all preceding presidents, have to take the advice of everybody around them, but then finally come to a decision. Jefferson himself, he didn't want a standing army. Next thing you know, we're outfitting ships for Africa. The fact of the matter is every president takes the incoming information and makes decision they feel are best.

Donald Trump does not want to be another one of the presidents who kicks the Iranian can down the road and believes that we can do it quickly. And what you're seeing in the streets of Hormuz, what you're seeing with the attacks on their Gulf state partners, this is a telltale sign that I'm sure all the intelligence knew signaled the last throes of this regime, and he wants to make sure that he puts this to bed sooner rather than later.

COATES: Well, we'll see if the American public agrees. You go back to Jefferson for a comparison. I don't know. There have been a lot of presidents since Jefferson, but I think I love historical reference. You think maybe a quicker one would be good (ph). Olivia, T.W., thank you both.

Next, getting ICE out of the headlines. Senator Markwayne Mullin outlines his vision to run DHS. So, why is one Republican senator not buying it? Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MAXWELL FROST (D-FL): It's a fake deposition where no one can see what's going on, where there's zero transcription, where it's not on C-SPAN or anything, and where no one is under oath and they are allowed to freely lie to members of Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Attorney General Pam Bondi on the Hill today accused of trying to dodge a subpoena to testify about the Epstein files. So, what exactly happened here? Let's talk about it with Congressman Dan Goldman in studio with me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: A rocky reception for DHS secretary nominee Markwayne Mullin today. Tensions flared right out of the gate as senators questioned Mullin about his well-known quick temper. The ex-MMA fighter pitched himself as a steady hand for DHS.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and Border Patrol agents. Explain to the American public how a man who has no regrets about brawling in a Senate committee can set a proper example for over 250,000 men and women who work at the Department of Homeland Security.

SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): I have made it very clear to the staff and I think when you and I spoke that a judicial warrant will be used to go into houses, in place of businesses, unless we're pursuing someone that enters in that place.

SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): Would you want to apologize to the family of Alex Pretti?

MULLIN: Well, sir, I just said I regret those statements.

PETERS: Is that the same as an apology?

MULLIN: I haven't seen the investigation. We'll let the investigation go through. And if I'm proven wrong, then I will, absolutely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Democratic Congressman from New York, Dan Goldman. Representative, thank you for being here. I actually want to begin on the idea of the temper because Mullin was grilled by a fellow Republican on his very temperament and how it could impact the thousands of federal ICE agents who he would oversee. Do you look at that as a risk for regaining the credibility and trust of the American people?

REP. DANIEL GOLDMAN (D-NY): Sure. It's absolutely something you have to look at. I mean, it seems too pale in comparison to Pete Hegseth and his history, and he is still the secretary of defense. But, you know, I take a step back, and I know there are personal issues between, you know, Senator Paul and Senator Mullin.

I point to a number of things that Senator Mullin said today that differ from the policy that DHS has been adhering to and even in these negotiations. I mean, just as you heard there, to say that we will not go into a house or place of business without a judicial warrant unless we are actively chasing someone who escapes there, well, that's the law, that's -- you know, we don't -- then we should just agree, which the administration is not even agreeing --

COATES: Right.

GOLDMAN: -- to include that in the funding bill.

[23:35:05]

I think the biggest thing for Senator Mullin is not his temper, is not much of anything other than, is he willing to stand up to Stephen Miller? Stephen Miller ran the Department of Homeland Security while Kristi Noem was the secretary. Everything came from him. I don't trust him. Nobody trusts him. He's a dark, dangerous individual. If Senator Mullin is willing to stand up to him as the cabinet secretary, then I think there's a potential future for him to correct some of the things, at least, within the DHS.

COATES: How do you ensure that, let alone watch it to make sure it happens?

GOLDMAN: Well, look, his testimony today, I think, was -- was somewhat helpful.

COATES: Because of the warrant's aspect of it? GOLDMAN: Well, the warrant aspect of it, he said he would eliminate the stupid hundred-thousand-dollar limit that Kristi Noem implemented, that basically has stalled all funding going out for FEMA. He wants a FEMA director because he recognizes it needs to be reformed, not replaced. There are things that he said that are, I would say, encouraging.

But there are concerns, of course, because of his past history, his rhetoric, his -- his temper, his, you know, when he was ready to fight Sean O'Brien in the middle of a committee hearing. But I -- you know, I think we have to be careful about that, for sure. But I want to take a step away from the personal issues between Senator Paul and Senator Mullin.

COATES: Let's talk about the fact that there seems to be no end in sight as of right now for the DHS shutdown. You've got fellow Congressman Don Beyer who warns, "It's not forcing any change. In the meantime, we're making people hurt. The long lines, that can't make us more popular. We're on the right side of ICE, but not on the rest." What will it take to pass the DHS funding?

GOLDMAN: The discharge petition that Ranking Member DeLauro put on the floor today, that would fund every single agency in the Department of Homeland Security except for CBP and ICE.

COATES: That's the sticking point. That's the key sticking point.

GOLDMAN: Right.

COATES: What would it take to do to create that funding opportunity?

GOLDMAN: Sign the discharge petition, pass the discharge position, send it to the Senate. There's no reason -- I mean, our issues are very understandably with ICE and CBP, which have acted so far outside the bounds of the Constitution and the law, that the notion that Republicans would not be willing to curtail this absolutely egregious, disgusting behavior that has resulted in the murder of two Americans is shocking.

So, now, we are providing them an out. We're saying, OK, well, you're -- you're saying we're holding up the funding. No, we're not. Here you go. Fund the Department of Homeland Security except for ICE and CBP until you make the changes that the American people demand.

COATES: Attorney General Pam Bondi met with the House Oversight Committee, as you know, to take questions about the Epstein files. But was not under oath. Issue. Democrats said it was her way to try and avoid a subpoena. I want you to listen to what Bondi said about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Will you commit to complying with that subpoena and appearing for a closed-door deposition?

PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: I made it crystal clear, I will follow the law. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: OK. Does that make it crystal clear, whether she'll show up?

GOLDMAN: No. I don't trust Pam Bondi as far as you and I are sitting from each other. She has repeatedly lied. She has lied under oath. She has lied in the Judiciary Committee. She is implementing a massive, massive cover-up.

And I went to the floor of the House today to reveal a little bit about that cover-up and a redacted document to the public that was unredacted to us, that she said was because of attorney-client privilege, which, you know, Laura, in and of itself, there's no congressional exception to the attorney-client privilege. So, if it's attorney-client privilege, it should be redacted for us. But what it revealed is statements by Donald Trump that completely contradict so many other things that he's saying.

And why it's important is, what else is in the three million documents that they are withholding? If they're trying to cover this up, if they're concealing the three interviews of a credible victim accusing Donald Trump of sexual assault, which they tried to do until they were shamed into releasing them, what else are they covering up in those three million documents? That's what she needs to answer questions about.

[23:40:00]

COATES: Obviously, the president would dispute that. He has not been charged or accused of specific wrongdoing in this action. However, what strikes me is what you've said. Obviously, the mechanism, the vehicle that would enforce subpoenas or enforce one who does not try to comply with one, is the Department of Justice.

It doesn't sound she has the appetite to pursue a claim against herself, number one. And you got Comer, the chairman who will not commit to holding Bondi in contempt if she avoids the subpoena. So, American people want to know, all right, then, what can be done? Are the questions just to linger indefinitely?

GOLDMAN: Well, Senator Ted Lieu and I have made a request to Deputy Attorney Todd Blanche that he needs to appoint a special counsel to investigate Attorney General Bondi --

COATES: Do you think he will?

GOLDMAN: -- for making direct false statements to the Judiciary Committee. Now, the problem that we're getting into is this administration is so lawless that we're normalizing it. Do I think he will? I don't know. Should he? Of course, he should.

And that should be the question, not whether or not he is going to follow what the law is, not whether or not Pam Bondi is going to follow what the law is. The question should be, oh, just because they won't, means that -- what do we do? No, they need to follow the law, and Republicans in the House and in the Senate need to make sure that they follow the law.

COATES: Is there a legislative angle where you could ensure that be the case? Obviously, your legislative branch, they want to follow the law. Could you make the consequences or the failure to do so harsher that in the future, it's not a thumbing of the nose?

GOLDMAN: Well, look at what Senator Tillis is doing over -- related to Kevin Warsh and the Federal Reserve. Right? He is holding up Kevin Warsh's nomination to the Fed until the Department of Justice drops this ridiculous investigation of Jerome Powell. So, there are mechanisms that can be used within the Congress to put pressure on the administration. The Republicans are in the majority. They have control of those mechanisms.

The questions you're asking, while I love talking about it, should be asked to them. Why is Jamie Comer, the chairman of the Oversight Committee, willing to go along with a massive cover-up? Why is Jim Jordan allowing Pam Bondi to come before the House Judiciary Committee? An outright lie. Why are they just letting that go when we know, last Congress, when Joe Biden was president, they would have never let that go?

COATES: Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you.

GOLDMAN: Thank you.

COATES: Next, the man who says he's ready to lead Iran, Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince who has been taking to social media almost daily with cryptic messages to the Iranian people about his plan to take over. Is it for real? That conversation is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: As calls for regime change in Iran continue to grow louder, one prominent Iranian now sees himself as the leader of that resistance and the one prepared to lead the country should the current regime collapse. I'm talking about Iran's former crown prince, Reza Pahlavi. He is the eldest son of Iran's last ruler known as the Shah, who led Iran before the monarchy was overthrown and abolished in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Well, Pahlavi has been a dissident, living in exile in the United States ever since his family fled Iran. And since the start of the war, he has been posting a series of messages on a near daily basis, calling on the people of Iran to take to the streets in opposition to the regime and often with some pretty specific instructions.

President Trump, though, he's not too confident Pahlavi is the right guy to replace Iran's current leader. But just last month, Pahlavi told my colleague, Christiane Amanpour, he has both the support and a plan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Why do you think a Pahlavi should be the leader again? And how can you do it?

REZA PAHLAVI, FORMER CROWN PRINCE OF IRAN: Well, when it comes to the name, that's the name that people chanted on the streets of Iran by the millions, in 31 provinces of Iran, in the four corners of Iran. They called my name. They asked me to come to their support, and I have. And I accepted the challenge of leading the transition. As far as the plan that we have, we have a plan before the regime collapsed and particularly for the transition after this regime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: My next guest, though, has criticized the way Pahlavi has handled the anti-regime opposition. He has a new piece titled, "Reza Pahlavi's Movement is Dangerous. I've Seen It Up Close." Independent policy analyst Alireza Nader joins me now. Alireza, thank you for being here. I mean, you've met with Pahlavi before. And you write in this piece that, at first, you were impressed by his defense of protesters and his talk of democracy.

ALIREZA NADER, INDEPENDENT POLICY ANALYST: That's right.

COATES: You now say, though, what he's doing is dangerous. What has changed?

NADER: Right. Well, thanks for having me. I've known Mr. Pahlavi since 2017. When I met him, he was a big fan of democracy. He said he was going to form a coalition of different groups, and he did before he dropped out of that coalition. And his message has drastically changed since, too. Since the woman, life, freedom uprising in Iran, 2023 specially, he dropped out of the Georgetown opposition coalition, then he declared himself the leader of the opposition. He went on a trip to Israel by himself. His supporters declared him the Shah or the king.

[23:50:00]

He doesn't talk about elections anymore. He doesn't talk about democracy. He says people call him on the streets, and some people have. Not millions, as he claims. There's no evidence to suggest that the majority of the people of Iran support him. We know we can't do surveys in Iran. It's not a free country. We have to have elections. Before that, there has to be a wide-ranging diverse coalition. Not one person can represent all 93 million Iranians inside Iran. And there are several million Iranians outside of Iran.

COATES: You've seen these video messages that he has been posting almost daily.

NADER: That's right.

COATES: You've been actually critical of some. Why do you believe he is positioning himself this way? NADER: I think a lot of people around him convinced him that he could be the leader, that he had majority support. I believe that, especially his supporters in Israel, elements of the Israeli government may have persuaded him to go it alone, not to form a coalition.

He has received a lot of support from Persian language media like Iran International. They broadcast messages for him every day, kind of become like a P.R. shop for him. It wasn't like that before. There are massive cyber operations supporting him. It's not clear who is behind it. All the time, I suspect a lot of it actually is the regime in Iran trying to divide the opposition by saying he can be the only alternative.

It's important to realize Mr. Pahlavi has not been in Iran for 46, 47 years. He has not administered any organizations. I did not observe him as having very good managerial or executive skills, things you really need to run the opposition.

COATES: What does the regime think of him?

NADER: I think they're happy that he's ahead, that he is high profile because Mr. Pahlavi hasn't been able to unify the diaspora since he left Iran, actually, as a teenager.

COATES: Suggesting that him being put in the forefront would make people double down on the existence of the regime?

NADER: Well, I think what happens is you don't get a unified population, unified opposition that can coalesce around one group. Now, there are monarchists who insist that only Pahlavi should be the leader, that he should be the Shah.

You know, he wants to be a transition leader, but how can somebody who wants to be the Shah or the king can be also a transition leader? It doesn't make sense. It's a conflict of interest. His transition plan, I think, concentrates a lot of power in his hands alone. There are no checks and balances. There's no transparency.

It really worries me as somebody who cares about Iran, who cares about democracy, who's seeing Iran being bombed while Mr. Pahlavi supports that policy, while the regime stays in power. What he has done, I think, has been very divisive.

COATES: Alireza Nader, thank you so much for joining.

NADER: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Up next, lights, camera, A.I.? The late Hollywood actor who is being brought back to life on the big screen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast, which means it is time to check in with Elex Michaelson on the West Coast. Elex, I don't know if you saw this, but the A.I. version of Val Kilmer will be starring in a new movie a year after he passed away. It's called "As Deep as the Grave." It's about archaeologists uncovering Native American history. And A.I. Kilmer will play a priest. I love Val Kilmer. I'd probably see anything he's in. But would you go see this movie? How does that feel to you?

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, I would because of the backstory here. So, Val Kilmer wanted to be a part of this movie. They tried to do this movie five years ago. He knew about this whole thing. This part was written for him. He got sick. He wasn't able to do it. His family is in favor of this. They're working with the director to make all this happen.

So, with all of that context, it's not like he's taking a job from somebody where they're creating somebody out of thin air. So, I kind of like that to honor Val Kilmer in one of his last wishes. The concept of A.I. actors taking over everywhere, that makes me a little uncomfortable.

COATES: Well, we heard Will Arnett at the Oscars, his conversation, about A.I. and the idea of real people. But I love Iceman. I got to tell you, I would see anything he's in. And his family, as you said, is on board. In fact, his daughter said -- quote -- "He always looked at emerging technologies with optimism as a tool to expand the possibilities of storytelling. This spirit is something that we are all honoring within this specific film, of which he was an integral part."

She is wrong. I mean, he did lose his speaking voice after a battle with cancer. And his voice was digitally-altered in one of my favorite movies, "Top Gun Maverick." But this is a hot Hollywood topic and not everyone is on board.

MICHAELSON: No. I mean, there has been a huge pushback. I mean, a big part of the reason for the SAG-AFTRA strike and why it went for so long was a fight over A.I. regulation for actors.

[23:59:58]

People in this town are very worried that their name and likenesses are going to be used without their consent, that it could cost people a lot of money. So, that issue is going to be going for a long time. But this is an instance where it is being used with his consent, with his family's permission, so I feel like it's a little bit different.

COATES: All right. Well, you know what? I'm looking forward to your show. The real Elex Michaelson is there, although --

MICHAELSON: Yes.

COATES: -- probably good A.I., too. Have a great show.

MICHAELSON: Yes. Laura, I will be with you in D.C. tomorrow night, which I'm excited to do.

COATES: I can't wait.

MICHAELSON: But for now, I am here in L.A. and the "Story Is" starts with breaking news.