Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Reverses Course on Iran; Air Canada Collided with Fire Truck; ICE Agents Deployed to 14 U.S. Airports; Supreme Court Hears Case on Mail Ballots Received After Election Day. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired March 23, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST AND POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And it continues. In total, it costs more than $280,000. The ad was part of a broader two- hundred-million-dollar advertising campaign effort by DHS. The department responded to CNN's request for comment, saying it doesn't control who contractors hire to fulfill services.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." Don't forget, you can catch my show "The Arena" tomorrow at 4 p.m. right here on CNN. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Trump tries applying the art of the deal to the war with Iran as he looks for an exit. But will the regime bite? Plus, the shocking and deadly runway crash at LaGuardia Airport. What went wrong? New accounts tonight from investigators and a passenger who says the pilots saved their lives. And later, ICE comes to the airport as travelers suffer long lines and a Congress locked in another blame game. Is a solution finally in sight? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
For my opening statement tonight, no matter how much headway President Trump says he's making, ending the war with Iran will be harder than starting it. He's hitting pause on what would have been a major escalation, a threat to strike Iran's power plants. And now, he's trying to sell progress that, frankly, is hard to verify.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We have points, major points of agreement. I would say almost all points of agreement. Perhaps that hasn't been conveyed. The communication, as you know, has been blown to pieces. They're unable to talk to each other. We're doing a five-day period. We'll see how that goes. And if it goes well, we're going to end up with settling this. Otherwise, we'll just keep bombing our little hearts out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But hold on because we actually -- we don't actually know who Trump is talking to. You know what? He isn't willing to say at this point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: But we're dealing with a man who I believe is the most respected and the leader. You know, it's a little tough. They've wiped out, we've wiped out everybody.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Is that the supreme leader?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Is that the supreme leader?
TRUMP: No, not the supreme leader.
COLLINS (voice-over): Can you say who that is?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mr. President --
TRUMP: Again --
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mr. President, I know you've deployed --
COLLINS (voice-over): Why not?
TRUMP: Because I don't want him to be killed. OK? I don't want him to be killed.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mr. President --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And then you've got Iran implying it's all B.S. There is no dialogue. Not that we can trust Iran, but that's what they're saying. Iranian T.V. is even reporting potential imminent action against Israel and regional allies of the United States. Why? To -- quote -- "completely remove any hope of negotiation" -- unquote.
So, then, are we moving closer to a deal or not? Because it's not clear whether there's an actual negotiation and with who or this is just negotiation theater. I mean, it appears like a Trump playbook of dangling a threat, then walking it back to try and force an agreement or at least create the illusion of one. He's giving us a glimpse of what his terms would look like.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Like 15 points. Fifteen points. We want to see no nuclear bomb, no nuclear weapon, not even close to it, low-key in the missiles. We want to see peace in the Middle East. We want no enrichment, but we also want the enriched uranium.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Wall Street certainly bought into his message. Markets surged on his announcement made before the opening bell after a three-day losing streak just last week. Bloomberg is even reporting Trump's walk back was partially designed to calm the jittery markets.
But here's the tough part: You know war isn't a financial deal. The enemy gets a say in how and when and whether it ends, especially if that enemy still has leverage. And Iran knows their chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz is their best weapon leverage. They can also hear the president's own allies encouraging him to put boots on the ground.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): So, here's what I tell President Trump. Keep it up for a few more weeks. Take Kharg Island where all of the resources they have to produce oil. Control that island. Let this regime die on a vine. We've got two Marine Expeditionary Units sailing to this island. We did Iwo Jima. We can do this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to begin with lead global security analyst at "The Washington Post," Josh Rogin, and the senior director of Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Behnam Ben Taleblu.
[23:05:00]
Thank you both for being here. It's nice to have you here to unpack all the things that are happening in very quick succession, by the way. Josh, President Trump is holding off on striking Iran's energy sites. Why do you think he backed off?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: I think you laid it out perfectly, Laura. He was bluffing. They called his bluff, and he backed down. And, you know, can say that he was doing this to sue the markets. Another way to say that is that he's doing this to manipulate the markets.
And what have we seen? We've seen the president completely changed his explanation of what he wants. Just days ago, he was calling for the unconditional surrender. Now, he's saying, OK, we want to make a deal with such and such terms.
And this is complete strategic incoherence. And despite the fact that we have a military that can hit any target that Trump tells it to hit, if we have no strategic direction, then there's no clear way to get to the end of this war. Now, it's a good thing and I think that Trump has realized that he's going to have to deal with the Iranians. But to do so in a way that has no coherence and no actual plan for extricating the U.S. out of this war is diplomatic malpractice.
COATES: There's also the question, though, of who he's dealing with. I mean, the president says there are negotiations with Iran. Iran says there was no dialogue. I mean, who is telling the truth and who do you think the United States is really negotiating with? The top leader, he's saying, but not the supreme leader. What's happening?
BEHNAM BEN TALEBLU, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF IRAN PROGRAM, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Well, listen, I think there's absolutely a zombie regime in place in the Islamic Republic today. And anybody that is going to be negotiating with the Americans directly or indirectly or via third party, for example, may not even be able to speak for all of what's left of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unless, of course, they're a veteran of that force.
COATES: They could not hold them to whatever --
TALEBLU: And perhaps could not hold them to. The question is, would they even be able to deliver on a deconfliction or a ceasefire deal, let alone a potential new nuclear agreement or a potential new missile agreement, which has gotten a million times harder after this conflict. If this regime survives the war, no matter how long it goes on, one week, three weeks, four weeks, it is certainly going to be hardening, coarsening, and get ready for whatever that zombie regime looks like to become a Middle Eastern version of North Korea.
COATES: And the issue, of course, in that zombie administration, essentially, as he points out, that negotiations that you make on Monday might have no weight whatsoever on Tuesday if it ever had any weight. And so, the timeline, of course, is thwarted again. But also, you have Israel saying that it struck the IRGC headquarters and other military sites today. I mean, how does that impact the talks with the U.S. and whoever the Iranian negotiator is?
ROGIN: Right. The Iranians can't be dependent because their negotiators are saying different things. The American team can't be dependent on because their negotiators are saying completely different things, including President trump. And the Israelis, meanwhile, have a very clear strategy, which is to keep escalating. And there are reports --
COATES: With no end game in mind that's --
ROGIN: Well, a different kind of end game than what Donald Trump wants. He says every single day, he wants to end it very soon, he wants to get out, he wants to wrap it up. Now, what Lindsey Graham said? Someone should remind Lindsey Gramm that thousands of U.S. Marines died in Iwo Jima. Is that a sacrifice that Trump is willing to make to take Kharg Island? I don't think so. I don't think Trump is going to do that. But will the Israelis keep bombing Iranian energy infrastructure despite Trump's mandate that they not do so? Probably.
So, we have a complete divergence in both the objectives, tactics, and strategies between the two allies, the United States and Israel. They are perpetrating this war. And meanwhile, the Iranians have shown no sign that they want to end this any time soon. And when you add all of that up, what you get is a total mess that is bound to expand the war, expand the suffering, expand the economic pain on Americans and the rest of the world with no clear end game in sight.
And this was a very predictable outcome that lots of people told Trump about. But he didn't believe those people. He believed the people that said it's going to be quick and easy. And now, he's figuring out that isn't true. But it's too late because he's already in it and doesn't have a real way to extricate it.
COATES: Well, a conservative columnist in "The Wall Street Journal," Gerard Baker is his name, posted on social media, "The unsettling reality is that with this president, Americans in wartime are in the unprecedented position of having to suspect that the enemy's version of events is more likely to be true than our own. We have become Baghdad Bob." Now, Baghdad Bob, obviously, a reference to a former Saddam Hussein spokesperson known for his wildly, inaccurate remarks.
What does that say to you that that would be a statement or a philosophy? Do you think that's true or that people believe that about the inaccuracy of what the president is saying in this instance?
TALEBLU: No, I don't necessarily see that as true. I think things are moving so fast and information is so diverse that things are much more kaleidoscopic. It's the same series of facts. But based on the lens you take to those facts, they look totally different, they present a totally different picture.
I just want to add something about the Israeli versus American end states. I think the big question here is, what does each country want versus what will each country settle for?
[23:10:56]
And what is the intersection of what you will want versus what you will settle for with Iranian national security behavior, with the continued missile strikes, with the continued drone strikes, with the continued repression of their own population at home? What's that balance between what you want and what you'll settle for and how much time, cost, and risk will you ascribe to trying to achieve that?
I think, here, we see a lot of flexibility that is being read. I just got back from Europe, by the way, for a week. There's a lot of flexibility both in the Israeli position and in the American position that is being read by America's transatlantic partners as having no strategic coherence.
I think, tactically, the Israelis are doing one thing, and that's decapitation. Tactically, the Americans are doing one thing, and that's the defanging, going against the missile program, going against the drone program, going against the military industrial base of the Islamic Republic.
To what larger strategic purpose? I think all of them might be OK with a whole different series of outcomes, whether that is a weakened Islamic Republic that simply can't do the things that it was doing before, project power meaningfully beyond its own borders, or a weakened regime that is actually more susceptible to street pressure, or a potential change in the government, or an evolution of the government.
I think the flexibility that both sides are bringing to the table here is risky, is costly, but I would also say the 47 years of stasis of trying to not rock the boat with the Islamic Republic has not given us 47 years of stability.
ROGIN: If you don't know where you're going, then any road will take you there. And if you can't articulate a clear end game, then you don't have one. And the Iranians get a vote. And they right now have a more coherent strategy than we do. And that strategy is to survive. If the Iranian regime survives, that will be a win for them and a loss for us. And if Trump wants to cut a deal and save face, that might be cutting our losses. That might be the best outcome here.
COATES: When you say survive, knowing the idea of decapitation or defanging --
(CROSSTALK)
-- administration --
ROGIN: Yes.
COATES: -- what is surviving?
ROGIN: If the IRGC and the mullahs run the country when this is over, then they've survived. They've won. Trump originally started by saying this will be the chance for the Iranians to take back their country. He hasn't said that in two weeks.
COATES: What's your point --
ROGIN: He just doesn't say that anymore because he doesn't care about actual democracy in Iran. He thinks it's like Venezuela. It's not like Venezuela. He's finding that out the hard way.
COATES: Behnam, what do you want to say?
TALEBLU: My preference as an Iran-American would be that the president would drive hard towards that ultimate goal, which is what he so eloquently, you know, put really on the line in January, which is to tell the Iranian people that help is on the way.
The challenge is, of course, that every time the conflict escalates or economically that conflict moves in a different direction, it seems that there might be a different avenue the president is going to explore here. Now, the Iranians are looking to manipulate that.
And we are watching right now a real-world game of chicken where America and Israel are attracting Iran's capability and capacity to fight, but the Islamic Republic is trying to attract America and Israel's will to fight.
And this is two very different sources creating a collision right now that ultimately, I think, is going to be read based on where you stand on this issue politically. If you saw the Islamic Republic as a threat before, you're going to see this conflict as necessary. And if you saw it as really something third-tier not to worry about, you're going to have more questions, qualms, and really disagreements with the administrations than answers.
ROGIN: Sounds like a quagmire to me.
COATES: Josh, Behnam, thank you both.
TALEBLU: Thank you.
COATES: I want to turn now to CNN military analyst, retired U.S. Air Force colonel, Cedric Leighton. Colonel, it's good to see you. I see "The New York Times" reports that senior military officials are thinking about possibly deploying the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. What are they capable of?
CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL: Well, Laura, it's great to be with you. And the 82nd Airborne is capable of a lot of different things. But basically, this is America's premier paratroop group. They are able to parachute into all kinds of different areas. They have a storied history that goes back actually to World War I.
But what they're doing here is -- basically, the standard here is when they stand up, they hook up, and then they shuffle to the door in the words of the parachute song, and they jump out of aircraft of any type, these are helicopters and C-130s and other transport aircraft. They're able to do this almost anywhere in the world.
And this is one of the most important things: They can be employed within 18 hours of getting the deployment order from the president to go to any location that the president needs them to go to.
And as you can see here, they jump into areas such as airfields. They jump into any area that could be denied territory, and they try to do it using surprise. So, this is absolutely one of the key elements of national power if it's used in the right way. COATES: I mean, just the sheer bravery that you see, and just being able and ready to do that is unbelievable to watch. I mean, colonel, Iran has recently fired missiles at a U.S. base over 2,000 miles away and failed. But this suggests that Iran has long-range capabilities they previously have denied. What does that range look like on the map?
LEIGHTON: So, when you look at this, this is the base that they tried to hit. This is Diego Garcia.
[23:15:00]
It's about 2,000 miles away from Iran. Now, what they probably have been able to prove here is that they don't have a missile that is just 2,000 miles in range, but the missiles that they're using may have a range as high as 3,000 miles.
So, let's assume worst-case scenarios, and that's what intel people like me like to do sometimes. We like to figure out exactly what the worst-case scenario is. So, let's take 3,000 miles. At 3,000 miles from Iran in a radius would include large portions of Russia, China, India, most of Africa, all of the Middle East, and all of these parts of Europe right here that includes Italy, Germany, Denmark, parts of Sweden, part of France, and almost reaching to the U.K. So, this is one of the critical elements right here.
Iran, if it has this capability, which may be derived from their space program, that means that they could have the capability of reaching all of these areas. They might not be very effective at targeting this yet, but at least they're working toward that, and that is why all of the different elements of their program are critically important when it comes to analyzing what their capabilities are. Their space program was probably a cover for their missile development program.
COATES: Colonel Leighton, thank you so much.
LEIGHTON: You bet, Laura.
COATES: Up next, the horrific runway crash at LaGuardia Airport. There are new questions being raised tonight about what went on inside the air traffic control tower as well as the cockpit. And later, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin officially confirmed just in time for the funding fight that's crippling America's airports. How will he deal with Trump's new and controversial ultimatum? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Proof of citizenship is part of Homeland Security. So, I think it should be welded in. I think it should be together.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, the NTSB is on the ground in New York investigating the horrific crash between an Air Canada jazz plane and a fire truck at LaGuardia Airport. Investigators have retrieved both the cockpit and flight data recorders. We'll analyze both to understand how this nightmare unfolded just after midnight.
Surveillance video shows the plane right after it landed, speeding down the runway at 104 miles. Then the fire truck crossed its path. And despite the pilots slamming the brakes, it was too late. We know the name of one of those pilots, Antoine Forest from Quebec. Incredibly, flight attendant Solange Tremblay was ejected from the plane, but she survived. She was still strapped in her seat by her seatbelt. And the crash forced some passengers to take matters into their own hands as they ushered people to safety.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REBECCA LIQUORI, PASSENGER WHO SURVIVED AIR CANADA CRASH AT LGA: I was actually sitting next to the emergency exit door. So, I opened the emergency exit, let out passengers, let myself out. There was no slide since the flight crew wasn't able to set that up. So, by the time I got out, an emergency personnel helped me jump off the wing of the plane.
I felt like the pilots saved our lives. I felt like their quick thinking and quick action braking slowed the impact and lessened what could have been an even bigger fatality. They're the heroes. I'm forever indebted to them. They're the reasons I was able to make it home safe to see my boys.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: We're joined now by Harvey Scolnick, a retired FAA air traffic controller, and Steve Cowell, a former pilot who co-authored the safety policies for the FAA's airport division. Thank you both for being here. Unbelievable to see that overnight. I mean, Harvey, seeing a passenger plane standing partially upright with a mangled nose, unbelievably jarring. How could something like this happen?
HARVEY SCOLNICK, RETIRED FAA AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER: It's not supposed to happen. The ground environment in that airport is supposed to be absolutely controlled by ground control and by the tower controller otherwise known as the local controller. You cannot cross a runway or enter a runway unless you're specifically cleared to do so. In this case, why you would do that when an airplane is on short final flaring out? That is unexplainable. I honestly cannot explain it.
COATES: One of the air traffic controllers was heard saying right after the crash -- quote -- "I messed up." Another seemed to reassure them that they did all that they could. Tell me about how crucial their line of communication is going to be in the investigation.
SCOLNICK: It is crucial. Now, we're not sure if we're talking about two controllers or one controller. I mean, normally, in normal conditions, there would be a ground controller and a local controller. The ground controller would clear the truck, the fire truck, onto the taxiway to hold short of the runway, and then would coordinate with the local controller for permission to cross the runway. There's some doubt in my mind as to whether there was a ground controller. It seems to me that the positions might have been combined and that controller working local for a moment, working both airplanes, is pretty busy because there were several things going on the other side of the airport and might have in a moment, in a moment of weakness, cleared the aircraft or the truck to cross the runway inadvertently.
[23:25:09]
So, it's just hard to believe it could happen.
COATES: It is. Steve, that video of the plane crashing into the fire truck, I mean, it's so shocking. The pilots only had, it looks like, mere seconds to even react. Is there any way the pilots could have avoided hitting the fire truck? I mean, my God.
STEVE COWELL, AVIATION EXPERT, FORMER AIRLINE PILOT: Well, at that point in time, they're on the landing rollout. The airplane is configured for its rollout. The speed brakes are up, the reversers are doing their job to slow the airplane, and there's an autobrake system that begins to work.
Those pilots at that speed really didn't see that fire truck until the very last second. And it's just -- it was a terrible situation. But given the length of runway that the LaGuardia has, given where the airplane was and how it was configured, it really would have been impossible to get that airplane in the air to avoid the collision.
COATES: I mean, it's really just off the water. People can see as well. I mean, Harvey, for years, we've been reporting on planes that have almost collided at airports. But airports also have a ton of vehicles. Are there any safeguards to prevent vehicles and planes? We heard about from, of course, Steve's discussion about how to keep a ground control and air control and differentiate. But is the presence of vehicles around the presence of planes, are they creating an almost inevitable issue?
SCOLNICK: Runway incursions have been a problem for the FAA for a long time. There are -- there are instruments on the ground which easily stop aircraft from going past the hold line. Vehicles can go past the hold line in many cases, right up to the edge of the runway. But in some cases, they can't. I'm not sure what LaGuardia has in this case. But, you know, it's unexplainable to me. I've listened to the recording and watched the replay of the thing --
COATES: Yes.
SCOLNICK: -- so many times. I just can't imagine how he could have given that airplane a clearance to cross the runway at that time. And I would imagine that the pilots probably heard this. And I'm sure that when they heard it, they couldn't believe it. I'm not even sure if he was talking to everybody on the same frequency, that he might have been using the ground control frequency and the local control frequency at the same time.
When I listened to the tape, I could hear times when the control was transmitting, and I could hear squeals in the background as if there were airplanes on other frequencies trying to speak. And you know that. When you hear that as a controller, you know that other airplanes are trying to speak on the same frequency. You'll get a squeal.
COATES: Well, my goodness. The investigation is ongoing. I know everyone, including the families of those lives lost, want answers. Harvey Scolnick, Steve Cowell, thank you both.
Up next, are ICE agents at airports a good idea? How about tying voting I.D. to DHS funding? And who exactly are voters going to blame for four-hour lines? I have a debate on that, next. And later, if a ballot is cast and mailed before Election Day, should it still count? The very tricky Supreme Court case had the justices asking a ton of questions.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's day 38 of the partial government shutdown at DHS. And for airline passengers, it may have been one of the worsts yet. TSA security lines stretched out the door and even wrapped around entire terminals at airports from coast to coast. And the presence of ICE agents didn't help much. President Trump deployed the agents to 14 airports to deal with the lines. Now, they can't do security checks. But borders czar Tom Homan says the agents could help with things like crowd control.
However, the only way to get rid of the lines completely in those crowds is if Washington funds DHS so thousands of TSA agents can return to work and be paid for it. And negotiations continue, even tonight. But President Trump is throwing a wrench in those talks with a new demand. He got to pass his voter I.D. bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're talking about two separate items, but they're really the same. Voter I.D. is part of Homeland Security. And citizenship, proof of citizenship, is part of Homeland Security. So, I think it should be welded in. I think it should be together. You should vote together.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Let's bring in our political experts, co-host of the "Verdict with Ted Cruz" podcast and host of the "Ben Ferguson Show," Ben Ferguson, and Democratic strategist and former advisor to Kamala Harris, Mike Nellis. Thank you both. Ben, let me begin with you because --
BEN FERGUSON, RADIO HOST, PODCAST CO-HOST: Good to be here.
COATES: -- you heard Homan say tonight, just tonight, that ICE agents will be looking for all sorts of alleged criminals taking part in human and sex trafficking and money laundering, other crimes.
[23:35:06]
Obviously, I'm a prosecutor. I don't want to yell at people on the streets. But how will this impact their ability to alleviate some of the concerns about the wait times if they are also adding to the search with criminals?
FERGUSON: Yes. Look, I think they can do two things at the same time. They're not the ones that are screening the bags, as we know. And TSA agents will be doing that, the ones that are showing up, and God bless them for showing up, as they're being held hostage and their pay is being held hostage by the Democratic Party for what we're now into multiple weeks.
The times have gone down significantly. In Houston, for example, right now, it's under 40 minutes, terminal A. It was upwards of almost five hours yesterday. Those times, that come out down. Minneapolis is at five minutes at one of their checkpoints late this evening. That was at four and a half hours the same time last night.
So, not only are these times going down, you're seeing that the president is understanding the American people paid their taxes and they deserve to be able to go to an airport and not have to be there for five hours standing in a line when trying to travel, do business or go on spring break.
And all of this is avoidable. The Democratic Party decided they wanted to hold the American people hostage at the airports. This is their decision to do it. I think it's a disgrace. And as American taxpayer, I'm furious and so are a lot of others. I don't understand why you would do this to the American people. But I'm glad that the president is continuing to look at different opportunities to put the American people back as priority number one instead of saying, we don't care about you, and that's what the Democrats have done.
COATES: Mike, what's your reaction to this assessment of the Democratic Party holding the people hostage with their efforts to essentially compartmentalize the payment between ICE and others?
MIKE NELLIS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER ADVISOR TO KAMALA HARRIS: Yes. Well, for starters, this isn't the Democrats holding up the funding. This is Donald Trump holding up the funding because he's demanding that they pass the --
(CROSSTALK)
-- fund additional money for ICE. It's not. Senator Kennedy on Fox News said it tonight. Donald Trump is the reason that we don't have a deal right now on TSA to fund these agents. Now, Ben brought --
FERGUSON: Seven votes.
NELLIS: -- up the progress that has been made.
FERGUSON: Seven times.
NELLIS: Hey, Ben, I didn't interrupt you.
(CROSSTALK)
COATES: Ben, hold on. Wait. Hold on. Both of you, hold on a second. Ben, I've asked him a question I'd like him to answer, the same way I asked you one, and you would have the opportunity to answer. But both of you can pause for a second because I do want to reference the clip that you just mentioned, Mike, of Senator Kennedy. We actually have it. Here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): -- and that we're out of the shutdown and DHS is back open. We submitted that. Senator Thune submitted that to President Trump. He said no, no deals with the Democrats. So, we're back to square one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Mike, now that we've heard what you referenced, continue your point.
NELLIS: Yes, that's the whole ballgame right there. Donald Trump won't allow there to be a deal. So, all this outrage from folks like Ben, this is a Republican shutdown. They're the reason that this is happening. And I want to make one more point, too, because Ben wanted to hail how the ICE agents are making things more efficient at airports. He brought up that Minneapolis is experiencing five minutes right now. There are no ICE agents in Minneapolis right now. So, Republicans should get connected to the real world --
FERGUSON: That's not true.
NELLIS: -- and stop taking credit for things that have nothing to do with it.
FERGUSON: That's not true.
NELLIS: It's not one of the 13 airports where there are ICE agents, Ben.
FERGUSON: Go on X right now. You will see them. Go on X right now. You will see them.
NELLIS: If you stand on your argument, you wouldn't be interrupting me. It's ridiculous.
COATES: Ben --
NELLIS: Listen, you're the one who's coming up here and explaining things that aren't true.
COATES: Well, let me ask you this. I happen to have been in Minneapolis this morning. I was also in Baltimore today. I experienced very little wait time in either direction. But I've also been in both places where there has been a huge ICE presence, especially in Minneapolis, on the ground, during the protest just several months ago after the incident that happened on the streets there.
But, Ben, you know Trump is demanding Republicans tie DHS funding to his voter bill, the Save America Act. Even Senate Majority Leader John Thune called that -- quote -- "unrealistic." I want you to address what Mike's point was along with Senator Kennedy's point about the idea of going back to the starting blocks yet again. If the president is saying no deals with Democrats, how does that help negotiations progress to get the American public where they want to be?
FERGUSON: Yes, when you're being held hostage by the Democratic Party and you've had seven votes to fund the Department of Homeland Security and stop this insanity at the airports. Seven times. That is a fact. Anyone can go check it. Seven times Democrats have said no.
NELLIS: Ben, are you going to answer the question that Laura asked you --
COATES: Did you hear my question about the president, Ben?
(CROSSTALK)
I hear -- Wait. Hold on.
FERGUSON: The president said --
COATES: Hold on. Wait. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on a second. I would like to have a conversation with you, but I need you to answer the question that I asked about the president's involvement in terms of him saying, it's not my words, it's Senator Kennedy talking about it, if the president is saying that there can be no negotiations with Democrats, then what are the seven votes?
[23:40:04]
What impact would those have? It sounds like he has a major vote there.
FERGUSON: You had seven times. Democrats had noticed. The president said, all right, let's change the strategy. Let's tie two things together. If you're going to hold America hostage --
NELLIS: He's not going to answer the question.
FERGUSON: -- then we're going to play the game differently.
NELLIS: He's not going to answer the question, Laura.
FERGUSON: I mean, doing the same thing over and over again is insanity. And the president now said, after seven chances for the Democrats to actually stop holding the American people hostage at the airport, all right, fine.
NELLIS: And the president of the United States is the reason that we don't have a deal right now. Senator Kennedy said it himself. Come on.
FERGUSON: That's why he said it this way.
COATES: Oh, now, you both not talking? So, Mike, let me ask you this.
NELLIS: -- Donald Trump is the reason that we don't have a deal right now.
COATES: OK, let me ask you this, Mike. Using reconciliation, that would mean Republicans could shut out Democrats when it comes to funding negotiations, right? And there might not be any reforms to ICE. So, tell me, is that a risk that Democrats are willing to take? Should they take it?
NELLIS: I think it's a risk. But ultimately, what's happening here is Donald Trump is holding up this deal. Ben doesn't want to admit that. But Republican senators are the ones who are going on Fox News and saying, we should be paying TSA agents right now. There's no reason that they shouldn't be getting paid. And it is Republicans who are standing in the way, and everybody knows that.
FERGUSON: He voted seven times.
NELLIS: And this whole thing with ICE is a stunt that's going to get people hurt. We all watched a woman get violently taped by ICE agents in San Francisco because she didn't have enough documentation to prove her citizenship. This is the kind of silly stunts that Republicans do because they can't govern.
FERGUSON: Seven times you guys voted, seven times in a row, including over the weekend, to not fund -- NELLIS: I don't know if you know this, Ben, but Republicans are in control of the House and the Senate and the White House. You guys can govern at any time.
FERGUSON: It's not a trick question. Seven times that the Democrats --
NELLIS: You guys can't govern.
FERGUSON: -- say no.
NELLIS: The president of the United States is preventing the deal.
FERGUSON: Seven times. This is new after the seven. I'm trying to explain this in like a child-proof way for you. You had seven times that you voted on this no. The president said, OK, let's try a different approach. That is what a normal leader would do.
(CROSSTALK)
-- eight, nine, 10, 11, 12 times. You guys say no.
NELLIS: Jesus. My God.
COATES: Well ---
NELLIS: Seven times, the Republicans have tried to tie ICE funding to TSA pay. OK? If you take that away --
FERGUSON: They have not done that.
(CROSSTALK)
COATES: Oh, my goodness. Hold on. Wait. I'm unclear as to what's happening, Ben. I don't understand why you do this because I'm asking one person a question, they're talking. You interrupt them repeatedly so they cannot finish their point. No one is doing that to you.
FERGUSON: You're not fact-checking when you're live.
COATES: No, I -- excuse me, Ben. Hold on a second. You have the wrong anchor. I'm telling you right now, I do fact check in real time, which is why I asked you the follow-up question about what the impact of President Trump's statement was on the ability to negotiate. You went backwards to the seven times as if you were the principal in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" talking about his penalties nine times. I'm asking you about the president of the United States, who you know where the buck stops. I don't know why you didn't answer that question, but to devolve into an insult to me or my guest is not the solution.
FERGUSON: I answered that. I said he changed the way he was going to work on this.
COATES: No. Now, you're answering it. But now, the segment is done.
FERGUSON: I said that earlier. You can go back and watch the tape. COATES: Oh, I will. And I also said, I'll say again right now, I'd like to have a conversation with you both. I hope the next time you both appear, I'm able to have that. Ben, Mike, thank you.
NELLIS: Me, too.
COATES: Up next, the very important Supreme Court case that takes on one of Trump's favorite election topics and could have serious implications for November's midterms.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You know, brought to my attention today that we're the only country that does mail-in voting. Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating. I call it mail-in cheating. And we got to do something about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Another day, another attack by the president on mail-in voting, something he has falsely alleged has plagued with fraud and cheating for years now. And just as he renews calls to get rid of vote-by-mail altogether, the Supreme Court could soon step in and upend how mail-in ballots are counted in about 14 different states.
You know, today, the court heard arguments challenging a Mississippi law that allows postmarked ballots to be counted if they're received within five days after Election Day, something known as a grace period. And the case was brought by the Republican National Committee, whose lawyers argue that federal law requires votes be cast by Election Day and no later. Now, a ruling is expected by the end of June and could have major implications for the midterm elections that will follow just a few months later.
My next guest has been following all of this very closely. He's a professor of law and political science at UCLA and author of the book "Election Meltdown." Rick Hasen, good to see you here. Tell me, where do you believe the Supreme Court justices are leaning on this very issue after today? Will they strike down these grace periods for mail- in voting?
RICK HASEN, AUTHOR, PROFESSOR OF LAW & POLITIAL SCIENCE, UCLA: I think it's really uncertain what's going to happen. There are three justices on the court, the most conservative justices, who were clearly ready to say that ballots -- states must only count ballots that are received by Election Day.
[23:50:00]
And then there were three justices, the most liberal justices on the court, who said, no, this is really up to the states. So long as we have proof like a postmark that the voters cast it by Election Day, then states have flexibility in terms of how long of a grace period they give. And then there were the justices in the middle, especially Justice Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts, who didn't really tip their hands.
So, I think this may come down to the end of June. And if the court actually rules that ballots have to be in hand by Election Day, it's going to upend the administration of elections in, as you said, more than a dozen states.
COATES: I mean, as you mentioned, Mississippi is one. But there are 13 other states and D.C. that have laws that count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. And that number is even larger when looking at states that offer this grace period for military families, for citizens living abroad.
You talk about the potential impact of the court's decision beyond Mississippi. But do you really believe that states will not be able to adjust to whatever outcome in June comes down from the Supreme Court if, for example, they say no more grace period? Does June to November not provide sufficient time for voters to be notified and adjusted in that way?
HASEN: So, Justice Kavanaugh actually raised this issue. There's something called the Purcell principle, which says the federal court shouldn't be changing rules close to the election. Kavanaugh was asking Paul Clement, who was arguing for the challengers, whether it's going to be a problem. Paul Clement kind of gave the back of his hand and said no, not a big deal.
Here's why it's a big deal. It's not a big deal for election officials to print in their booklets, now you got to receive it by Election Day. But voter education takes a long time. You know, voters are used to voting in a particular way. And you've got to spend a lot of time and effort, time that election ministries are usually spending before the election, actually getting ready to run the election, trying to educate these voters. I don't think it's going to be that easy.
And I think, you know, there'll be some voters who are going to lose their ability to vote because of this. And for what? As you said, the amount of fraud in this country with the casting of mail-in ballots is quite low. And the idea that we're going to make it harder for people to vote for no good reason just doesn't sit well with me.
COATES: Justices also voiced concerns over how this might impact early voting altogether, not just the grace period, but early voting altogether. I want you to listen to something Justice Kagan said today, who argued you can't ignore the way elections have changed over time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE (voice-over): Congress couldn't have conceived of the kind of early voting we have now. It couldn't have conceived of a thousand other ways in which we administer elections now. And so, so I think it really is a problem for you as to how you draw this line and say, well, this is across the line, but all these other things that we do differently now from the way we used to do them in the 19th century, those don't worry about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Could this case eventually impact the way all early voting is conducted?
HASEN: Oh, it's possible. I think the fact that the solicitor general as well as Paul Clement for the challengers both tried to back off and say this case isn't about early voting is because they're worried that the implications of this case would mean that you had to actually cast the ballot on Election Day, not up to Election Day. That would be a huge change because so many millions of people vote early, either in person or by mail.
Even, you know, in states like Florida, where they have the ballot deadline of Election Day for the receipt of ballots, there are millions of people that are voting by mail or voting in early vote centers. It would be, you know, a huge change.
And I should note that just today, I saw a news report that Donald Trump voted by mail in Florida. I mean, this is just the way that we have been doing things in this country. And the idea that we're going to change it because of claims about fraud that are unproven just seems like really not the best way to honor Congress's intent, which was basically to say, here's the last day that ballots can be cast and leave it to the states to decide the mechanics of how they're going to do that.
COATES: I'll be curious what the Supreme Court says. Rick Hasen, thank you so much.
HASEN: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, the comeback story that has the music world on the edge of their seats.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, it's almost midnight here in the nation's capital, which means it is time to bring in our friend, Elex Michaelson, out in Los Angeles. Elex, wait until you hear which music icon is about to make a concert comeback.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: I love that song. The queen of power ballads, Celine Dion, is turning the stage in Paris this fall, according to Variety. And the shows were delayed due to her health issues after she was diagnosed with a rare neurological disorder in 2022. I mean, she's my karaoke go-to. I sing it horribly, but I sing it. Are you excited as I am about this?
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I am excited. So, what is your go-to karaoke song by Celine Dion?
COATES: That line. That's why I just played.
MICHAELSON: "It's All Coming Back to Me Now."
COATES: Yes. The meatloaf-inspired-esque tunes. Yes, that's my song.
(LAUGHTER)
I would also try "The Power of Love." But, I mean, like, Im your lady and you are my man part. I love that song. Love it, but I can't sing it all.
MICHAELSON: Yes. Too many people, though, would try "My Heart Will Go On," which is not a great karaoke song --
(LAUGHTER)
-- unless you can sing it like Celine Dion, and very few people can sing that like Celine Dion. I chose "Because You Love Me" as my favorite Celine Dion song.
COATES: Oh.
MICHAELSON: I think it's sweet.
[00:00:00]
And it also reminds me of dances when I was very young and they used to dance like this because you were kept far away from the girl. "Because You Love Me," that song brings me right back to that era. But she's so great. And I'm glad to hear she's feeling better, too.
COATES: Well, you know, in honor of that song, for all the times you've stood by me, for all the wrongs you've helped me see, have a great show, Elex Michaelson.
(LAUGHTER)
MICHAELSON: There we go. All right, Laura Coates, have a great night.
