Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Declares War "Won" As U.S. Prepares To Send 1,000 Soldiers From 82nd Airborne; Democrat Emily Gregory Brought The Democratic Surge To Trump's Backyard; Minnesota Sues To Obtain Evidence In Shootings By Federal Officers During ICE Surge; Trader Made Nearly $1M On Polymarket With Accurate Iran Bets; Movie Props Up For Auction. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired March 24, 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: The collision killed the plane's pilot and co-pilot and injured dozens of people, including a flight attendant who was thrown from the plane while still strapped at her seat. We will, of course, continue to bring you updates as this story develops.
Thank you all for watching "NewsNight." Don't forget, you can catch my show "The Arena" tomorrow at 4 p.m. right here on CNN. Don't go anywhere, "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Tonight, the 82nd Airborne expected to deploy just as Trump claims the war is won and a deal is near. Plus, Mar-a- Lago goes blue? The election upset that has Democrats giddy about November. And shady or just lucky? The suspicious trades being made on the prediction markets, but is Congress suddenly paying attention? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, you know, you don't usually send more firepower into war, then you say you've already won. That's exactly what President Trump seems to be preparing for with Iran. Our sources tell us about 1,000 soldiers with the army's 82nd Airborne Division are getting ready to be deployed to the Middle East. And that's on top of the thousands of marines and sailors who are already on their way. So, the U.S. Military is doing one thing and Trump is saying something else.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You know, I don't like to say this. We've won this. This war has been won.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But a war isn't really over if the attacks are still happening. Drone attacks hit a city in Iraq a short time ago and a fuel tank at Kuwait's international airport. And the United States is still striking targets in Iran. If there really is any off-ramp here, the diplomacy behind it is still pretty murky.
Now, Trump is optimistic that a deal is in sight. But how far any talks have actually gone, well, that's still unclear. Now, publicly, Iran says nothing is happening. But one Iranian source is telling CNN that there has been outreach through intermediaries, and that they're willing to listen to sustainable proposals.
Now, the president is outright declaring Iran has already agreed to not having a nuclear weapon and he's saying who's involved in the talks on the American side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: J.D. is involved. And Marco is involved. And Jared Kushner is involved, very smart guy. And Steve Witkoff, smart guy, is involved. And I'm involved. I'm involved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I would hope so. But the Iranians, they've got a preference of who they want to deal with, apparently. Sources from the region tell us that they want to talk with Vance. Why? Because they seem to see him as more sympathetic to wanting to end the war. And that might track because the vice president has been previously outspoken about avoiding new conflicts overseas, at least until this one.
And who is it exactly that Trump is talking with on the Iranian side and the administration? Well, we actually still don't know. But Trump says they're bearing gifts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They gave us a present, and the present arrived today. It was a very big present, worth a tremendous amount of money. It was oil and gas related, and it was a very nice thing they did. But what it showed me is that we're dealing with the right people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: It's, of course, important to know who the right people are because President Trump has said the U.S. has killed Iran's top leaders, killed the next in line, killed even the ones after that. So, it matters who exactly is left that has the authority to make a deal stick or what was the word they used? Sustainable.
The country's internal leadership structure, well, that's complicated. It has multiple centers of power. There are competing factions inside of it. And Trump claims they aren't even talking with each other.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The communications are going -- that's the biggest problem. It's very hard to communicate them between themselves.
The communication, as you know, has been blown to pieces. They're unable to talk to each other.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: So, the president says he's talking with the right people. You know, in a power structure, as weakened as the president says it is, the real question is whether anyone on the other end can actually deliver.
I want to begin with retired army major general, Randy Manner, and CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen. The questions are out there in terms of who is speaking, who has the authority, who can make it stick.
[23:05:03]
I mean, general, there's Trump's insistence that the United States has won the war. Then there's the deployment of the 82nd Airborne. Is it all but certain that these troops will see combat or this symbolic in nature?
MAJ. GEN. RANDY MANNER, RETIRED MAJOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: I certainly hope that it is symbolic and that it is posturing by the president. Sending in an airborne brigade, which is extremely lightly armed and announcing it in advance, is not something you should be doing. I was --
COATES: Even for deterrence?
MANNER: Even for deterrence. I was actually in the 82nd. When the Shah fell in 1979, I was the company commander. And, quite frankly, even though we were alone and unafraid, we knew that it was going to be a very difficult mission to actually capture the Tehran airport. And those airborne, that airborne brigade, this is not the proper use of them because of how lightly they're armored.
COATES: Based on your experience -- I'm curious because this regime has remained pretty bullish. They don't seem to be shying away from the prospect, at least outwardly and vocally, of the possibility of ground troops in Iran. Why is it the president would go down that route given that? Is Iran just posturing?
MANNER: It's probably both sides are posturing. I think it's very important that those marines that are already outside of the straits. They could be used, hopefully, to reinforce after hostilities end, reinforce the American bases. They could be there to restore order to the consulates and the embassies, which is a primary mission. I certainly hope that they are not going to be used for any kind of a boots on the ground situation because they will be a huge target by the Iranians.
COATES: Peter, the president says that Iran has agreed to no nuclear weapons. Is that plausible?
PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I mean, Iran agreed to that in 2015 with the Obama nuclear agreement. They agreed not to enrich about 3.5 percent. Well, you need 90 percent for nuclear weapon. It was Trump that pulled out of that deal. It's very ironic that, you know, the deal that he's hoping to get is basically the deal he pulled out of in 2018. It's very close to the deal that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were negotiating on February 27th, the day before we went to war against Iran.
COATES: So, given that, what would they actually need for that to be plausible to abandon nuclear ambitions?
BERGEN: Well, I mean, you know, you have to have inspectors. You have to, you know, only enrich to, let's say, 3.5 percent or 1.5 percent. You can debate about the percentages. But, I mean, there's a big difference between 1.5 percent and 90 percent. And that is something that inspectors, you know, can inspect and that's something that they were based on the agreements between Witkoff and Kushner. They were getting very close to that. Basically, used for civilian purposes, medical purposes and -- yes. So, that's the deal that we may be coming back to.
COATES: Interestingly enough, the sources are telling CNN that Iran would prefer negotiating with Vice President J.D. Vance than, say, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. Vance apparently is seen as more sympathetic about ending the war. What do you make of that?
BERGEN: Well, Vance said publicly in 2024, a year and a half ago, that the war would be a massive distraction and hugely expensive. Well, that turned out to be a pretty good prediction of what happened. So, you know, I mean, obviously, he has presidential ambitions. He knows that, you know -- I mean, it's a kind of tough one for him, you know, maybe to accept this poisoned chalice because, you know, it may not get solved very quickly. But, clearly, he's seen as more sympathetic.
You know, Jared Kushner is well known. Netanyahu slept -- he's a friend of the Kushner family, slept at the Kushner family residence back when he was visiting the United States. And so, you know, that history is well known. They see J.D. Vance as somebody who might be more sympathetic to that cause.
COATES: General, well, the president continues to claim that there is victory. The former secretary of defense, General Jim Mattis, warns this: "Iran right now, if we declared victory, they would now say they own the strait. You'd see a tax for every ship that goes through." We're in a tough spot. I can't identify a lot of options. Can you?
MANNER: I think this is one thing where it is actually an act of negotiation with the Iranians. The Iranians can keep that strait closed at any time. It's something where they have the capability by missiles or drones to strike any ship that passes through there from anywhere in Iran. You don't have to just be in the mountains surrounding the strait to use a direct fire weapon. You can actually hit a ship from anywhere.
So, it has to be something that is negotiated. And I certainly hope if they are doing it, it's one of those 15 points about how can we do this between the U.S. and Iran to ensure that those straits are opened up to commerce in the next few weeks.
[23:09:56]
COATES: Peter, the president insists that regime change has already happened, and that he's dealing with a new group -- the phrase he's using -- willing to strike a deal, a group, I should mention, that gave the president a very big oil and gas-related gift. We don't know the specifics of that. What is that all about, you think?
BERGEN: The gift? I mean, who the hell knows? It sounds like a bad piece for the apprentice or something. It doesn't -- you know, it doesn't mean anything. I mean, if the gift is that the Iranians basically control the strait, as the general points out, more or less it will, and that they can charge $2 million for every ship that goes through, which an Iranian parliamentarian has just said is going to be the cost of entry, we're doing some rough math, that's about a billion dollars a week. That's a pretty big dollar gift to the Iranians from the rest of the world.
So, you know, one thing I think, Laura, is worth pointing out, the new generation are all people who fought at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, which is sort of a trivial pursuit question in the United States at this point. But for these people, this is the main experience of teenage and early 20s life. A million people died. You know, they believe that God was on their side. They sent 15-year-old boys into minefields. You know, declare them, believing that they would be martyred. That's the people that are now in charge. So, it's worse than the people previously.
COATES: Well, would a ceasefire be a kind of gift to Iran in the sense of allowing them, general, to regroup, recalibrate, reassess and all that?
MANNER: Well, absolutely. The military capabilities of Iran have been absolutely reduced. They still have the capability to wreak havoc in the Middle East. We have to understand that this has really not gotten as bad as it can get. If they were to choose to hit the power plants for our allies in that area to include our U.S. bases, then we would be in terrible trouble.
And even worse than that, if they chose to hit the desalination facilities for U.S. bases as well as the Middle East, that could actually cripple that entire area because they don't have any water in terms of rivers. They take it from the ocean.
COATES: So, if the U.S. were to bow out now or to allow the status quo to then persist, you have said, Peter, that you fear a potential for history to repeat itself. How so?
BERGEN: Well, I mean, we have this sort of strategic narcissism where we say, you know, we're ending the war. Well, other people can have a vote here. We said we ended the war in Iraq in 2011. Three years later, ISIS was marching almost at the gates of Baghdad.
So, I mean, the Israelis have different strategic goals than we do. They want state collapse. We don't necessarily want that. And then other players in the region have their own goals. And, of course, the Iranian regime. We may have something that's even worse. That is the sort of the next iteration.
So, I just think, if we say the war is over, we've seen this movie before, it doesn't necessarily mean that the conflict is over. COATES: Speaking of who has a say, I want to play for a second Secretary Hegseth at the Pentagon who says that the Pentagon has a voice in the negotiations. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We see ourselves as part of this negotiation as well. We negotiate with bombs. You have a choice as we loiter over the top of Tehran, as the president talked about, about your future. The president has made it clear that you will not have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: We negotiate with bombs? That doesn't sound right.
MANNER: Very few things the secretary of defense sound right. They're not logical. It's bantering. It's really reflecting his education experience as a major in the D.C. National Guard. By the way, I was a member of the D.C. National Guard. I'm not trying to diminish those young majors that are there. But he does not have the experience in the way that he talks, does not reflect anything that's logical. Negotiating with bombs? What the heck does that mean?
COATES: A lingering question. Thank you, gentlemen.
(LAUGHTER)
Up next, Mar-a-Lago goes blue? A Democrat pulls off yet another election upset, this time flipping a Florida statehouse seat in Trump's own backyard. So, how did she do it? And is it a sign of things to come in November? We'll have that debate, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, a major flip in Florida where President Trump's Mar-a- Lago resort will be repped by a Democrat. Emily Gregory won the special election for House District 87 in Florida. She beat the Trump endorsed candidate by about three points. That's a complete reversal from 2024 when Trump won the district by 11 points.
Now, a little bit about Gregory. She's a small business owner. She's married to a U.S. Army officer. She says her win proves the electorate is ready for change.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMILY GREGORY, REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT, FLORIDA HOUSE DISTRICT 87: Everyone thought we were crazy for saying we could win this seat. Everyone said it was out of reach.
I think it's a real reaction to the current policies at the national and state level. And I think that is a clear indication from voters it's the wrong track.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Let's talk more about this with T.W. Arrighi, former senior communications aide to Lindsey Graham and host of a new podcast along with his co-host, Bill Vangelakos, called "What's Your Take," and Herbie Ziskend, former White House principal deputy communications director under President Biden. Good to have both of you here. T.W., I'll begin with you since you've got this new podcast. What does it say if Republicans can't hold onto the Mar-a-Lago district?
T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUSH DIGITAL GROUP, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM AND MIKE POMPEO: Well, I always think it's a bit of a fool's errand, Laura, to look too deep into House races, statehouse races.
COATES: Seriously?
ARRIGHI: I do. I do. It could be a data point for Democrats to show they're making progress. But it's a race that I would be shocked if many people in Palm Beach were really tracking in their day-to-day lives. This is honest.
COATES: But Trump endorsed the opponent. Obviously, he is tracking it.
ARRIGHI: He sure did. And there are a lot of other races that Democrats have flipped before. But look, don't mistake these small things for macro things.
[23:19:57]
So, what I mean by that is if you look at the generic ballot right now, numbers just came out from Reuters the other day, Democrats hold a two-point lead over Republicans in a generic congressional ballot. When you talk about 2018, the last big Democratic wave, this time, they were up nine points. That is a massive swing. Voters still believe that the Democrats have a massive brand problem. So, I don't want to confuse perhaps Trump's dip in unpopularity with Democratic popularity. The energy is on the Democratic side, but we're a long way from Election Day 2026.
COATES: What do you think, Herbie?
HERBIE ZISKEND, FORMER BIDEN WHITE HOUSE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I think this is a flashing, bright red light for the Republican Party. This is a seat that the Republican in 2020 won by 19 points, and the Republicans just lost this seat. And it's not one data point. It's over 25 data points, over two dozen races nationally in swing districts and Republican seats that Democrats have won since 2024.
And it shows the president has 35 percent approval. He's deeply unpopular. This week, he's focused on paving the West Wing colonnade with black asphalt. He's not focused on lowering prices, number one issue. And it's starting to hurt Republicans down ballot, and it's going to become a bigger and bigger problem for Republicans in a few months.
COATES: He was very focused on voting. He says he did vote in the election, and he voted by mail which, of course, is quite ironic because he just called cheating yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: 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 all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You know, it doesn't make sense to a of people who know that a big chunk of his base are older voters who rely on mail-in voting. He obviously would technically qualify as an older voter who relied on mail-in voting as well. I mean, why -- why do this? It seems like it's cutting off one's nose to spite your face.
ARRIGHI: Well, I would concede the point that it would look good for him to vote in person. That always looks good. Might be good to --
COATES: That's not his point, though.
ARRIGHI: Hold on a second. I'm going to get to that point in a second. It might be good to note that we have a few things going on in this world right now that are demanding our president's attention and should have his full attention. But beyond that, the president is really talking about states that mail-out ballots to everyone, whether they ask for them or not. That has been his -- always his chief concern.
And you just referenced the SAVE Act, which is Donald Trump's cure to all of this. It doesn't ban mail-in voting. It requires proof of citizenship to register to vote and proof of I.D. to vote. But there is no ban in his signature legislation for mail-in voting.
So, what he is talking about is what's happening in states like California and elsewhere where they're throwing ballots all over the place, whether you're registered or not, whether you could be a citizen or not, not the, you know, the efficacy of voting in person if you are a registered citizen of this country.
COATES: You're following me on Instagram. I did explain there about the SAVE Act and what qualifies as appropriate I.D. or not and the hurdles. I was a voting rights attorney for DOJ. So, check that out at "thelauracoates."
Herbie, I mean, one of the things that Democrats are talking about is affordability. They're not talking about re-litigating the idea of whether our mail-in ballot system or our elections are somehow flawed. So, do you think that Democrats are -- have an advantage strategically to focus on the kitchen table issues as opposed to the Democratic principle issues?
ZISKEND: Absolutely. The president is the proverbial boxer in the corner punching himself right now. He's obsessed with the 2020 election, which he lost by over seven million votes, and he will not stop. And it's the SAVE Act trying to invent this problem of voter fraud that does not exist, and I think we can agree does not exist.
And then, it's not just this. you know, the president has nominated 37 judicial nominees in his second term. Every single one of them, with no exception, has said that -- has not said that Donald Trump lost 2020 election under oath and sworn testimony and will not say what happened on January 6. This is the price of admissions to be a federal judge to peddle the big lie.
And the SAVE Act is another distraction for a president that's not focused on affordability. He's focused on the 2020 election, and it's a problem for Republicans
COATES: I want to play for you the conversation my colleague, Erin Burnett, actually had with Emily Gregory before the race was called. And Erin asked her smartly if she thought that Trump's endorsement mattered in the race.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREGORY: My opponent put it front and center. And I focused on the issues that matter most to Florida families. Everyone is feeling that affordability crisis and the last thing that Florida families needed when they're struggling is $4 gas. So, that is what I spoke about and that is what I talked to voters about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: T.W., when you hear that and, obviously, she was successful over a Trump-endorsed candidate, do you see any concern that Democrats would be capitalizing on the idea of dissatisfaction about the economy?
ARRIGHI: It's always going to be the economy. The economy is always going to be the top issue in the election. I think what we overlook here --
COATES: So, why won't Trump focus on that?
[23:25:00]
ARRIGHI: Well, I would disagree with the premise. I actually do think he is focusing on the economy. I think, as president, there is a whole host of issues that you need to be focused on at the same time. You have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. This is a president who put forward and protected the largest tax cut in history. Democrats wanted to pass the largest tax increase in history. He kept taxes on social security, taxes on overtime, taxes on tip, all things Democrats --
COATES: But taxes -- I don't want to interrupt you, but taxes are not always synonymous with the economic concerns of a nation. You know it is part of a nuanced (INAUDIBLE). I'm talking about gas prices, I'm talking about groceries, I'm talking about the cost of living for everyday people.
When people think about their individual economies, they're thinking about those issues. And that's my point when I ask about why the president -- you have to know that this is the number one issue. If you're saying it's the economy, stupid, not looking at either of you when I say that. But why do you think -- how are Democrats going to be positioned to try to capitalize on what is the perception, even in his backyard, that he's not focused enough even through an endorsed candidate?
ZISKEND: Their job is to focus relentlessly on cost of living, on affordability.
COATES: Are they doing a good enough job at that?
ZISKEND: I mean, they've run 25 seats. As I said, the Democrats have won every single race in the swing district or Republican district. Now, are they doing a sufficient job? More needs to be done. This needs to be the focus.
COATES: Like what?
ZISKEND: Continuing to talk about it and try not to take the bait when there are other issues that arise. But it's not -- you know, in the last 80 years, the president's party has lost seats in the House in every single midterm, say (ph), for two. The headwinds for Republicans, even before we get into the dynamics right now, are already there.
And it's on the incumbent president to focus on this. And he's focusing on -- you know, he has his tariffs, which are unpopular and driving up prices. He has his war, which is unpopular and driving up gas prices. He's trying to federalize elections right now and slowing down lines at the airport because of holding up TSA funding. These are all unpopular things. None of them are focused on affordability.
COATES: We'll see what happens in the end. Gentlemen, thank you.
ARRIGHI: Thanks.
COATES: Up next, more than 400 TSA agents and counting now off the job as Congress refuses to do theirs and get a funding deal done. So, what's it going to take? And is there any real progress to speak of? Well, a member of the Homeland Security Committee is going to join me next. Plus, Minnesota gives DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin a chance to prove that he'll be different than Kristi Noem with a very important lawsuit that has just been filed.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Day 39 of the DHS shutdown initially brought a glimmer of hope the end was near. Senate Republicans appeared to get President Trump's support to fund DHS agencies individually like the TSA. And that bill would pay TSA workers and alleviate the chaos at airports. And Republicans would pass a standalone bill to fund ICE. But many Democrats, they are skeptical of the plan. Even some House Republicans aren't buying it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): As long as Donald Trump is holding America hostage to pass a measure that would in effect purge voter rolls and suppress voters, there will be no deal.
HARRIS (ph): No. That's crazy. You got to reopen all of government.
UNKNOWN: Are you definitely a no on that proposal?
HARRIS (ph): Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want bring in Congressman James Walkinshaw. He's a Democrat from Virginia and also a member of the House Oversight and Homeland Security committees. So, the right person to talk about what's been going on.
Congressman, look, according to the GOP's plan to fund DHS, Democrats would be shut out of any ICE funding negotiations. The Senate minority leader told CNN that that's not enough, and he plans to make a counteroffer. Is that a strong enough move?
REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA): Look, I think it is pretty simple. If Republicans want more funding for ICE, there has to be real reforms. Democrats are clear and consistent on that. But we've also put on the table time after time after time after time funding for all of the other DHS agencies with the exception of ICE and CBP.
Let's fund TSA, get those agents paid, let's fund FEMA, get those folks paid, let's fund our cybersecurity agency, get those folks paid, and continue to negotiate around the reforms that, I think, the American people want to see around immigration enforcement.
COATES: That's what you want and what you can get. How do you bridge the gap when it comes to those reforms?
WALKINSHAW: Well, look, I think there are conversations taking place right now and, hopefully, over the next several days.
COATES: Are they productive?
WALKINSHAW: Well, we'll see. We'll see. I hope they'll be productive. I hope Republicans will come to see. For example, President Trump said yesterday ICE agents and airports don't need masks. So, if they don't need masks in airports and they're all over video cameras and social media without their masks in airports, they can go without their masks in communities across the country, one of the Democrats have been demanding. So, I think there's a path for an agreement either around those reforms and the funding to reopen all of DHS or to reopen the non- immigration enforcement agencies and continue to talk about it.
COATES: There's hemorrhaging right now at the TSA. I mean, 400 employees have already quit. Not called in sick, they quit at this point. How do you stop that from continuing to happen? I've been a federal employee. I've not been paid during a shutdown. People are angry. How do you stop it?
[23:34:54]
WALKINSHAW: And it's important to note for those federal employees, including TSA agents, this shutdown comes on the heels of last year's shutdown, but also comes on the heels of the Trump administration and DOGE taking the chainsaw to the federal workforce.
Three hundred thousand federal workers fired or pushed out by this administration before the shutdown. So, these folks have absolutely taken it on the chin. It is outrageous. It's unacceptable.
I have a bill that would pay all of our federal workers during any shutdown this year, given what they've already been through. I hope to get some Republican support for that bill either during this shutdown or, God forbid, in a future shutdown.
But we should be paying our TSA workers, and then continuing to negotiate around reforms for immigration and ICE.
COATES: I wonder if that can happen in a timely fashion. I mean, listen, today, Minnesota sued the DOJ to demand that they turn over evidence that was related to the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. You've been demanding similar documents, frankly, and from DHS as well. Now, there's a new DHS secretary, senator -- former senator Markwayne Mullin. Are you hopeful that he may be more cooperative with your requests?
WALKINSHAW: I'm not hopeful. I hope he is, but I'm not hopeful. I mean, I think if you look at his track record, this is a guy who has a weird and strange inclination toward violence. We've seen him in Senate hearings, try to start fights with people talking about dueling. It's the year 2026, the United States of America. He's a grown man and a United States Senator. He's talking about getting in fights and dueling.
COATES: So, your information is that he would not be properly overseeing agents who have used a force.
WALKINSHAW: Yes. I have real concerns about the kind of example he will set as the leader of DHS. Also, important note, he has no experience in Homeland Security, didn't serve on the Homeland Security Committee in the House, didn't serve on the Homeland Security Committee in the Senate, has no experience running a large organization.
Department of Homeland Security is a very large and complex organization. In my view, he doesn't have the experience, and he doesn't have the temperament. I hope he proves me wrong, but I'm not hopeful that he'll prove me wrong.
COATES: I mean, he has been a member of Congress. Obviously, a senator. He may not have been part of DHS, but he has certainly asked for his share of documents and information. Do you think that his background in Congress might make him more likely to be cooperative, at least the disclosure, or will there be other hurdles?
WALKINSHAW: Well, I hope it will. And I did see in his confirmation hearing, he noted that a lot of senators, maybe all senators, have his cellphone, Democrats and Republicans can call him if they're not getting the information that they need. And I hope he'll be true to his word there and respect Congress's critical role in conducting oversight of the department that he now leads.
COATES: Well, we'll see if those calls get blocked. Congressman, thank you so much for joining me. Congressman Walkinshaw.
Still ahead, gambling on war, and I mean literally gambling on war. The stunning amount of money being made on the prediction markets that's raising suspicions of insider trading. New bills being authored, new rules being written. Will any of it matter? Kara Swisher is with me on that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: All right, get this. One person has made nearly $1 million off of Polymarket bets, bets solely and correctly predicting U.S. and Israeli military actions against Iran. Makes you say, hmm, right? Because all of the events this person predicted, well, they were unannounced. They were often highly-classified military operations. Analytics company Bubblemaps flag the transactions to CNN. The CEO says they're suspicious according to the timing of the trades and the success rate which, by the way, was 93 percent.
CNN has reached out to Polymarket and got no response. And if you haven't looked at the site, you may be surprised on everything you can bet on. You know, I was. There's a standard stuff like, who will win March Madness? My bracket is done. You can also place bets on things like, what will Karoline Leavitt say at the next press briefing or how many tweets will Elon Musk post this week? I should note that CNN has a partnership with Polymarket's competitor, Kalshi, and uses its data to cover major events. Editorial employees are prohibited from participating in prediction markets.
Joining me now is CNN contributor and host of the "On" and "Pivot" podcasts, Kara Swisher. Kara, so good to see you. I mean, the CEO who flagged this activity to CNN says this all signals insider trading. Do these transactions pass a small test for you?
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, OPINION CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: No, they don't. And there has been a lot of them. This isn't the first one at all by any means. And so, that's the issue, is that there has been a lot of them. And they're often feeling that people know what Trump is going to do. Maybe people close to him tell people, it is so right for gaming if you have the right insider information. And then you don't understand who's betting and how and because it's hidden.
The second problem is that it's gambling, right? And it's not regulated like gambling. It's called predictions market. But it's essentially gambling. It is gambling. And so, a lot of states have come in because gambling is quite regulated across our country for a long, long time. And so, the question is, how much -- how good is this data? How easily is it to game? Is there insider trading going on?
COATES: I mean, the bets were placed on Polymarket's international site. To your larger point -- I mean, that's out of the reach of U.S. regulations. Some regulators are putting forward some regulations to try to stop that. There's a bill to ban sports from prediction markets. But, I mean, can Congress really push through regulation because they haven't been able to ban stock trades, for example?
SWISHER: Well, you know what? There is gambling legislation across this country. So, it's not as if, you know, just like there's legislation on other things. This is not an internet phenomenon. Gambling has been going on for a while.
[23:45:01]
And this is a new version of gambling. It's heavily used by young men. And I think the problem with the predictions market -- they often are right, by the way. They do a really good job and you could compare it to polling or something else.
But it's who is in the market, who is making these bets. What kind of people are they? Is it really that accurate? Again, can it be gamed and what are they betting on? Some of it is pretty dire, what they're betting on. Now, Kalshi doesn't bet on death (ph), I guess. They have some rules around it. But the Polymarket is sort of a wild west in that regard, you know.
And then there's the involvement of the Trumps again. Donald Trump, Jr. is an investor in one of them and is an advisor to two of them. And now, Trump today announced that Trump is going to have a markets prediction in the True Social universe.
And so, it's a lot of good money making, but it's gambling. Like, it just is. And as much as they try not to say that, they should be regulated by the way sports betting sites or other gambling sites are done.
COATES: I mean, they did announce, Polymarket, I mean, they did announce new rules yesterday. They banned trades based on legally confidential information. And they said people with the authority to affect the outcome of an event, they are the ones that cannot bet on related markets. And Kalshi says it's blocking athletes and politicians from trading on their markets. I mean, will these policies actually have the intended effect of preventing a kind of insider trading or is it an honor (ph) system?
SWISHER: What are they going to do? Like, are they going to enforce it? I don't know. You can just say it. You know, it sorts of reminds you of Casablanca. I can't believe it is gambling going on here. You know, I just don't think you can enforce something that difficult and understand who people are and who they're betting through. And where do they get the information? It's just a massive problem here.
You know, gambling has had that problem forever. There's always some. Every couple of years, one of the, you know, betting problems comes up, everyone gets arrested, then it cleans out, and then it happens again.
COATES: Is there a benefit to any of this, though, you think?
SWISHER: What?
COATES: Is there a benefit that you see in any of this?
SWISHER: Yes. I was going to say -- Yes. The wisdom of crowds is really interesting. And because -- you know, the wisdom of crowds is a really important thing and it does sort of indicate what people think, right? In terms of if you're going to put your money on the line, that means you mean it, right? And that more so than a poll or anything else. And so, it does give you insights. And presumably, that's why CNN and other media companies are doing it.
I just feel like it's -- I don't know who's -- what the recipe is. I don't know who's in it. I don't know who's saying it. You do know that with polls, they have much more structure around who they're polling and how many people. But, ultimately, I think it should just have a lot of transparency. Who's in the market and who's betting? And that would be important information if I was repeating any of their -- any of their predictions. Are they getting -- they can be very accurate. Absolutely.
And some of them are fun. Some of them are fun like anything else. I'm going to do a Laura Coates bet. I have to figure out what -- what's Laura's hair going to look like this week?
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Oh.
SWISHER: What's she wearing?
COATES: Let me give you some insider trading. I think I might do a bob next time. I don't know. I'm just saying. There you go.
SWISHER: What's the most recent concert Laura went to? Wait, I have insider information --
COATES: You know what? You know, this is why I love you, Kara Swisher, because you pick up what has been put down. Thank you so much.
SWISHER: Yes. COATES: And you know what? I cannot wait to see your show because I tell you all the time, I do want Kara Swisher to live forever. And she's got a show talking about this. All right, well, fine.
SWISHER: It's not happening.
COATES: I predicted --
SWISHER: You can bet on it, though.
COATES: I'll see --
SWISHER: All right, you can bet on it.
COATES: Kara --
(LAUGHTER)
SWISHER: You can do that.
COATES: No, I won't do that. I would never. Kara, thank you.
SWISHER: I'll let you. How long is she going to live? How about that? How old will she be?
COATES: Indefinitely.
SWISHER: Probably at 103? Yes.
COATES: Looks good. You're like 80 years away from that. Still, I have my friend. Take care.
(LAUGHTER)
It's a movie lovers dream. A chance to own a real and rare piece of Hollywood history, including Wilson. Sorry. I had to. A special look is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, here's a question. What if your favorite movie didn't have to end but, instead, it actually came home with you? And no, I'm not talking about old DVDs or streaming it or replicas or a poster, but actual real pieces from the movies you love, like Russell Crowe's helmet from this iconic scene in none other than "Gladiator."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: You do have a name.
UNKNOWN: My name is Gladiator.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Or maybe, maybe, a certain character from "Cast Away" would look great on your coffee table. I'm not talking about Tom Hanks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Than to stay here and die on this shithole island, spending the rest of my life talking to a goddamn volleyball!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Or maybe, maybe you want to go fishing. Not with just any old fishing pole.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: No!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:55:00]
COATES: Well, more than 1,300 props from so many classics are to go on sale tomorrow. And an auction expected, expected to raise as much as $9 million. You know, earlier, I caught up with the COO of Prop Store, Brandon Alinger, who joined me from his L.A. shop. I want to play for you a part of our conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COATES: Brandon, so good to see you. I mean, let's look at some of these props because one of the leading items right now is this light- up C-3PO head from, of course, "Star Wars," with an estimate between $350 to $700,000. OK, show me how it works. And why is it that fans and collectors are going nuts over it?
BRANDON ALINGER, COO, PROP STORE: Yes. Well, look, we like to refer to these things as the ultimate movie collectibles, right? These are pieces that were actually used, as you said just a moment ago. These are not replicas. This is the real thing used in the making of everyone's favorite films and television shows.
And so, this C-3PO helmet is actually a costume piece. Anthony Daniels, the performer, did wear it in the movie. It's a two-part design that sort of goes together as a clamshell. This is actually the first one from that second film, "The Empire Strikes Back," that has ever come to the collector's market. So, this is --
COATES: Wow.
ALINGER: -- you know, in the 45 plus-year history of "Star Wars," this is the first time. Fans have had a chance to get a genuine C-3PO helmet from empire.
COATES: All right. Good piece it is. Brandon, you also have with you the iconic Wilson from, of course, "Cast Away." I understand only 12 Wilsons are believed to have been made for the film. I won't tell the other Wilsons, but this one looks pretty special.
ALINGER: Yes. This is actually one of the very best examples that we've seen. As you said, they did have a number of them for the movie. We have sold two or three in the past. But, of course, the prop progresses through the film. So, the hair, for example, grows. We saw in the clip a second ago where he's painting the face on the volleyball. There are different stages of the Wilson through the movie. This is a particularly nice one, in my opinion. It just has a great visual aesthetic.
It's also used in some very key scenes where Tom Hanks is having a very prominent conversation with it. And you see it very nicely on screen. You can match up every little detail, all the little marks on the leather. Even the sticks and twigs in the hair, you can match up exactly, meaning we can place this Wilson, this exact prop in that specific scene. And we've had a lot of questions and inquiries about this piece already.
COATES: That's a great movie, especially that sad scene when it starts to flow to -- I can't -- I can't get into it, Brandon. But I also can't help but notice, there's a massive fishing pole next to you. I believe that gun in front of you is the same harpoon gun used by Robert Shaw in "Jaws." I got to know the backstory of this particular prop. Can you -- can you still hunt a great white shark with that thing?
ALINGER: You could. You could. I don't know if we advise it. You know, people are probably buying these more as collectibles than for shark hunting accessories at this point. But once it's yours, you can do what you like with it.
I mean, this is the actual harpoon rifle that Robert Shaw used as Quint in the Spielberg masterpiece "Jaws" which, of course, was released just over 50 years ago in 1975. You know, this is sort of a fabled prop. People wondered for many, many years what happened to this prop, the harpoon rifle.
And the great thing about this one is because of the wood grain, so the natural organic wood grain on the shoulder stock and the forearm here, and actually the accessory case that we see in the movie as well, Shaw takes it out of the case.
We can screen match this piece. It means you can go in and look at the film in 4K high-definition resolution, and you can see every organic nuance of this wood grain, and you can compare it to the one here in front of us today. And it's like a fingerprint. It matches up exactly. It is undeniable that this is the "Jaws" harpoon rifle.
COATES: Wow! That's incredible. I mean, as a big movie fan myself, I love seeing all these. But, you know, the value of movie props has really skyrocketed in recent years. You'll recall, just over a year ago, Dorothy's ruby slippers were auctioned for a record -- I can't believe this -- $28 million. Why are collectors more willing than ever to spend this kind of money on this kind of memorabilia?
ALINGER: I mean, it's a great question. And I would say it is really all about connection. You know, it's all about connecting with things that you love. And these movies, they mean so much to people. They live in our hearts and our minds. And people revisit them again and again and again. You know, they're passed down through generations. People watch them with their families. They're just these beloved parts of the culture. You know, American culture and culture around the world.
And that's really the common theme that we see when we talk to our clients. We talk to collectors and buyers. As you said at the top of the segment, you know, people think about collectibles, they think about posters. Maybe they think toys. Maybe they think, you know, stamps or whatever it might be. But the actual pieces that were used in the making of the film, they are available now to collectors as well.
COATES: Wow.
ALINGER: And we just see people get very, excited about that.
COATES: I can see why. If you ever find the "Pretty in Pink" dress, let me know.
[00:00:00]
Brandon Alinger, thank you so much.
ALINGER: Thank you. Thanks for having me on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COATES: Thank you for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
