Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Clean Exit From Iran War May Not Be Simple; Trump Signs Executive Order To Crack Down On Mail-In Voting; Tiger Woods Steps Away As He Decides To Get Treatment; Chicago Bulls Announces Parting Ways With Jaden Ivey. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 31, 2026 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, the White House teases a national address from President Trump on Iran as he says the war could wind down in two or three weeks, but a clean exit may not be simple.

Plus, Trump signs an executive order to crack down on mail-in voting, but is that legal? Colorado Secretary State joins me to weigh in.

And Tiger Woods steps away as he decides to get treatment. And now we're learning what he had in his pocket during his DUI arrest. Tonight on Laura Cotes Live.

Good evening, I'm Victor Blackwell, in for Laura. A big announcement from the White House tonight. President Trump will address the nation about the war with Iran. It's set for tomorrow night at 9 P.M Easter.

The White House has not previewed what the President will announce. But from the first day of the war, the President has been saying a lot different things on different days. He's been veering between threats and off ramps, sometimes in the same sentence.

Today was no exception, but he gave perhaps the clearest indication yet of how he wants this to go -- declare victory and walk away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I would say that within two weeks, maybe two weeks, maybe three --

UNKNOWN: -- will be -- the U.S. will be done or done with the war?

TRUMP: I think we're two or three weeks in. We'll leave because there's no reason for us to do this --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: All right, there are still though some glaring questions here. For example, what about that potential deal he was talking up just a few days ago? Well, now he says, it's irrelevant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We want to knock out every single thing they have. Now, it's possible that we'll make a deal before that, because we'll hit bridges, and we'll hit some bridges. We've got a couple of nice bridges in mind. But if they come to the table, that'll be good. But it doesn't matter whether they come in, whether we have a deal or not, it's irrelevant.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Okay, so the deal doesn't matter, but the Strait of Hormuz is still effectively closed. Gas prices are spiking. The world is facing a major oil shock. And the President's answer to that? Well, other countries should build up some delayed courage to go to the strait and get their own oil.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If France or some other country wants to get oil or gas, they'll go up through the strait and -- the Hormuz Strait, and they'll go right up there and they'll be able to fend for themselves. I think it'll be very safe actually. But we have nothing to do with that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Okay, but there's a big problem with that, too. If the U.S. exits this war and the strait is still closed, not to state the obvious, but the strait is still closed, oil prices don't care whose war it is. Gas prices, jet fuel, anything that moves on a truck, all those costs stay elevated. Which gets to the bigger question, what exactly does the President think is different now? He says the core mission is complete.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So, regime change was not one of the things I had as a goal. I had one goal -- they will have no nuclear weapon. And that goal has been attained. They will not have nuclear weapons. It'll take 15 to 20 years for them to rebuild what we've done to them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: So, he says regime change was not a goal, although he told Iranians on the first day of the war to quote, "Take over your government." Well today, he kept talking as if the regime had in fact changed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have had regime change. We have had regime change. That's why we have regime change. We have nice new leaders. It's a new regime. They are much more accessible. The leadership we're dealing with now, with the new regime, because we have a new regime, and the new regime is much better.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLACKWELL: So, we don't actually know who's calling the shots in Iran right now. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said so himself. But calling it regime change makes any potential exit a lot easier to sell. The problem is the Strait of Hormuz is still a mess and a clean exit may be harder to pull off than it sounds.

I'm starting tonight with former associate counsel, the President George W. Bush, Jamil Jaffer. He was the lead architect of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act and White House and foreign policy reporter for "Politico," Eli Stokols.

[23:00:05]

Eli, let me start with you. Is the White House or anyone there, are they hinting at what the announcement is coming from the President tomorrow night?

ELI STOKOLS, WHITE HOUSE AND FOREIGN POLICY CORRESPONDENT "POLITICO": Well, you've laid out the inconsistency over the last several weeks pretty well. It's unusual to have a prime time address when no one has any clue what the President's going to say, except, maybe it's less unusual with this President given what we've seen over the last few weeks.

I think that he could go any number of ways. When he says this war may be over in two weeks, what I'm hearing is he hasn't figured it out yet. He hasn't decided yet. He doesn't know where he's going to find the win -- the public win that he's going to declare and then walk away. I know that inside the White House, they're concerned about energy prices in the markets and that's driving a lot of this.

And so, I think we'll hear some reassurances about that and about the fact that they're going to wrap this up. It's not going to be a forever war. And I think you'll hear them continue - you'll hear the President continue to mention that the goals have been achieved -- the military goals decimating Iran's military.

That -- you we heard from Press Secretary at the podium yesterday, they will continue to say look our military's done a great job. We've done all these things. And there's this nonchalance now about the Strait of Hormuz as if it's not connected to people's gas prices and everything else. That's going to be a harder circle for the President to square.

But I think you're going to hear, you know, everything is great. We've done our job. And now, it's sort of up to Iran to play ball with us, or else I don't know that we're going to get a clean "the war is over" tomorrow night.

BLACKWELL: Has he hit, though -- I mean gas prices today hit above $4 a gallon for the first time since 2022. Has he hit a breaking point where he just wants to get out, find the door, find the off ramp as quickly as possible?

STOKOLS: I think he's closer to that point than he was, obviously, when the war started. And I think the energy prices -- that's a big reason why. When he's heard there's a lot of conversations we reported inside the White House over the last days and couple weeks about look, we could be looking at $150 a barrel for oil going, you know, into the near future. That obviously has a political impact.

But I've also talked to people who say look, they know the midterms are basically lost. And if the President really needs a win, you know, he may just say, well the House has lost, anyway, and I don't know about the Senate, but I'm going to go for it in Iran. So, we still have a lot of marines on their way to the Gulf right now. The Chekhov's Gun theory of the case would be that they're not going there for nothing.

BLACKWELL: Yes. Jamil, we're talking about this as if there are only two parties here, if it's just Iran and the U.S. Israel has some pretty ambitious goals that are probably more ambitious than the President. Two to three weeks, does that fit their timeline?

JAMIL JAFFER, FORMER ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, it doesn't seem to. The President talked about, even just today, that the nuclear program is the most important thing. Well, we know there's 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, 60 percent very close to 90 percent because it only takes five percent more work to get it from 60 to 90.

So, saying the nuclear program is done, it's 15 years away, that's just not believable. We've got another 220 kilograms of about 20 percent enriched uranium. There's a lot of capability there still available. There may be uranium enrichment facilities we don't know about. There's Pickaxe Mountain, there's the site at Isfahan, it's buried deep below. We don't know what's out there.

And so, for the President to say, well, we've solved, we've done it, we've solved the nuclear program. I don't think anybody, much -- least of all, Israel, believes that's really true.

BLACKWELL: Yes, and if you consider the first justification we heard from Secretary Rubio about why the U.S. and Israel attacked, it was that Israel was going to attack Iran and there would be consequence for the U.S. Now, even if the U.S. pulls out in two to three weeks and Israel continues, doesn't that same logic suggest that there will still be threat to U.S. assets in the region?

JAFFER: There's no question that'll be the case. And -- but I don't really think that was the whole story, right? That is what Secretary Rubio said, no doubt.

BLACKWELL: That was the first case.

JAFFER: It's been a moving target, right? The President said different things. Secretary Rubio said different things. Secretary Hegseth said different things. At the end of the day, what we do know is that we set out a certain number of goals. Nuclear program was one of them. Prevention of terror attacks was another.

Taking out their Navy, we actually have done a pretty good job on that, 150 ships knocked out of the sea. Their missile launch capability, seventy percent, degraded, great, but they still have thousands of missiles still available. This is a real problem because you -- and regime change, the President called for that on day one, called for the Iranian people to rise up.

Yes, we have a new leader, but it's the former leader's son, who's by all accounts more brutal and was a leader that even his father didn't want.

BLACKWELL: Yes, he says he's now dealing with a group that is much more reasonable, much more rational, much -- less radicalized. How is regime change being measured here if you have the son who is, you know, mourning the death of his wife, his children, his father? Is this regime change by any definition?

JAFFER: It's solely not for the Iranian people who are protesting in the streets, right? Whether the Green Revolution or President Obama or Mansa Mayne or President Biden or the most recent protests where President Trump said, I'm coming, help is coming. This is not the help they were looking for having Mustafa Khomeini as a Supreme Leader.

Now, yes, we've killed a lot of key senior leaders. We've killed the Navy -- the Navy leader. We've killed Larijani, right?

[23:10:00]

The former parliamentary head who became the national security head. So, we've taken out some really important players. But the reality is you've got a million armed Iranian -- you've got 300,000 IRGC, you've got 600,000 regular military -- 600,000 Basij, pardon me, 300,000 regular military.

You've got a lot of armed Iranians, that's a 93 million person country, but that million armed. You've got 600,000 regular military, 600,000 Basij pardon me, 300,000 regular military. You've got a lot of armed Iranians, that's a 93 million person country, but that million armed and committed to the regime, they're still operating. It's hard to imagine uprising taking those folks out.

BLACKWELL: Yes, I want to contrast what we're hearing from the White House on talks and negotiations where they've been optimistic for several days, but now the President says a deal isn't necessary.

We heard from Iran's foreign minister that they don't have any faith, quote, "not have any faith" on potential talks with the U.S. Where does that leave negotiations? At this point, are they just going to leave them on the table and back away?

STOKOLS: The negotiations, my understanding is that there's some back channel negotiations through a third party and they are in the very early stages. It's understandable that the Iranians would be skeptical given that there were negotiations taking place when this war began, and Israel and the United States just came in and took out all of their political leadership.

So, it makes sense that they would question, you know, what they're hearing from the President publicly. And even the overtures that are being made through private channels, my understanding is there's a couple different private channels that the foreign minister is talking to Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, that Vice President Vance may be talking to the leader of the parliament.

And then you have, as you pointed out, IRGC, they are really in charge here and they don't want to stick their heads up at all because they don't want to, you know, they see Israel still running jets and dropping missiles on them. So, there's a hesitancy that is very understandable in the middle of the war, especially given the nature of the Iranian regime.

And also, the precedent with the President, and his saying there's a great deal and saying there's a lot of progress when really the progress seems to be sort of minimal. And then also, you know, saying that we're giving negotiations a chance when really you're just buying time to launch the offensive.

So, it's understandable why analysts would look at this and say, I'm not giving, you know, I'm selling on this one. I'm not putting a lot of faith in the fact that there's going to be some breakthrough diplomatic deal. Maybe more realistic is the President just deciding the U.S. is done, we're going to pull back and give maybe a longer window.

And as he has teased publicly, we'll figure out what happens with the strait. But that's, you know, when he's saying that's not our problem he may be saying, well, I want an end point that may not resolve that issue.

BLACKWELL: Well, what he's saying is France should go and solve it, and Europe should solve it. Are we seeing significant damage to this relationship with the E.U., with the President saying, Europe, you go solve that.

JAFFER: Well, look, I mean, I think we've had a lot of damage with the relationship with the E.U. already, starting with, you know, with the vice president's speech at the Munich Security Conference a year ago after the president took office. Marco Rubio made some inroads, I think, this year at the Munich Security Conference.

We're rebuilding that relationship. But now, saying, look, we went in, we broke it, you fix it, right, seems like a bit of a challenge, right? Look, the reality is the Straits of Hormuz -- Iran's tried to close a number of times. This was totally predictable. The fact that the only thing that's surprising is it took them three weeks to really get to really closing it effectively.

Almost 3000 transits typically would have taken place over this last month. We've now seen only about 200. That's a lot of backed up capacity there. That's 20 percent of the world's oil supply locked up there. That's going to raise prices to Eli's point, right? Regardless whether we're there or not, regardless whether France tries to open it or not, we broke it. We ought to fix it.

And the real truth of the matter is, if you want this effort to work against Iran, you have to choke them off from their oil. That is how they make money. That is how they survive. You've got to be able to sustain that. And if you're not willing to sustain that, why are we getting into a war where that's the first move on the table?

STOKOLS: But one thing that Trump's right about when he says, it doesn't matter to us. We have a plenty of oil here. It matters more to Europe. And the energy crunch will be more severe there first. So, this may not be their war. Maybe it's our moral responsibility to fix something that we broke.

But Donald Trump doesn't care about that. And the fact is for the European leaders, it is their problem and it's a more acute problem more immediately for them.

BLACKWELL: Eli, Jamil, thank you both. All right, next, President Trump rails about mail-in voting again today, but this time he took action. In several states, they're already suing. Will my next guest join them? Colorado Secretary State is here. I will tell you what you need to know to protect your vote ahead of the midterms.

And ahead, a judge tells the President he does not own the White House. And now that big, beautiful ballroom is on hold.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:19:09]

BLACKWELL: Much of the world's focus is on the war in Iran, but President Trump turned back to one of his favorite topics, mail-in voting. He signed a new executive order today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It's horrible what's going on. And it's very clearly covered, very, very clearly. So, I think this will help a lot with elections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: The order directs the U.S. Postal Service to redesign ballot envelopes and incorporate unique barcodes to track them. And it orders DHS and the Social Security Administration to create a state citizenship list.

Now, it would use federal databases and citizenship records to create a list of eligible voters and send it to each state. Of course, all of this plays into Trump's constant claims of voter fraud, but non- citizens attempting to vote is extremely rare.

[23:20:02]

Plus, it doesn't look like the President has the authority to do this. Remember, states have the power to run elections, not Washington. Elections officials in Arizona and Oregon say that they will sue to block Trump's order ahead of the midterms.

And with me now is another top election official, the Secretary of State for Colorado, Jena Griswold. Madam Secretary, thank you for being with me. As I said, there's -- it's not clear what the authority that the President is leaning on for this. Is it clear to you that he does have that authority to make these rules and regulations around mail-in voting?

JENA GRISWOLD, COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first off, good evening. Thank you for having me on. And absolutely not. Donald Trump does not have the authority to regulate elections himself. The Constitution is extremely clear. States oversee elections. Congress has not passed any law on this subject, and Trump is once again just trying to unconstitutionally take control.

This is a part of his multi-step attempts to take control of American elections. The good news is courts are largely stopping him and he is failing on this quest.

BLACKWELL: Speaking of courts, Arizona will sue, Oregon as I said. Will Colorado sue as well?

GRISWOLD: We are in conversations with our attorney general and we're eager to be in this fight. I'll tell you, I'm currently being sued on a separate topic by Trump's DOJ for refusing to hand over voter data. I told the DOJ to take a hike.

Just along the same veins, Trump has no authority. He has no authority to say who is able to have a mail ballot. He wants to create a Trump voter list. That's not going to stand. He has no authority to tell the postal service which ballots to deliver for mail ballots.

And more than that, I do want to underline this executive order also directs the DOJ to go after election officials and election vendors who help send mail ballots. So, it's a huge overreach by the President. And again, he is likely to fail. And I'm looking forward to courts striking this down.

BLACKWELL: And I mean, if the courts do not, I mean, there are still many questions about the legality of this, but your state mails out ballots to every voter, vast majority of Coloradans vote by mail. How would this even work? How would it impact people's access to voting?

GRISWOLD: That's a great question. I'm not even sure that the federal government could comply with this executive order. So, this executive order says that the federal government, DHS, will send states a list of eligible Trump voters to use mail ballots 60 days before elections. Are they able to do that?

And I'm telling you, they do not have the tool to do list maintenance. States do list maintenance. So, overall, we can see this as another tactic of Donald Trump trying to suppress the vote. And I think the grand irony, if we haven't been living years and years of this nonsense, is Trump literally just used a mail ballot himself this month.

BLACKWELL: Yes, I was going to ask you about that. I mean, as the President is trying to end mail-in voting for millions of people across the country, he often votes by mail. He just voted by mail in the special election in Florida. What goes through your mind when you hear that --those two facts back to back?

GRISWOLD: I think it's very clear that his intent is to undermine the 26 election and suppress the vote. Mail ballots are safe and secure. He has used them multiple times. His family members have used them. Republican voters use them just as well as Democrats and unaffiliated.

I think it should be very worrisome to any American that Donald Trump wants to make a list of people he deems okay to use a mail ballot. He is someone who is attacking our democracy and elections using the presidency. This is just one attempt in multiple attempts to make our elections less secure, because honestly, he does not want to hear what the American people have to say in 2026.

I strongly believe he will fail with this executive order. We will hold American elections together and Americans will be able to make their voices heard in the 2026 election.

BLACKWELL: Jena Griswold, Secretary of State of Colorado, thank you so much.

Next, are you feeling it? The extra dollars you got to spend at that gas station. Don't worry because the President says this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: All I have to do is leave Iran and we'll be doing that very soon, and it'll become tumbling down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Is that all? Not exactly. Plus, a judge tells the President construction has to stop. Looks like that White House ballroom won't be done anytime soon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:29:44]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN JORGENSEN, E.U. ENERGY COMMISSIONER: Nobody knows how long the crisis will be. But I think it's very important to underline that it will not be short. Because even if there was a peace tomorrow, there would still be consequences.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:30:01]

BLACKWELL: It's a dire warning. It comes from the E.U. Energy Commissioner. And Europe knows it's next to face the energy crisis caused by the Iran War. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman points out that oil deliveries to Asian markets end this week. In Europe, they end next week. And there are very few tankers on the horizon. Now, here in the U.S., prices for gas top $4 for the first time since

2022. No end in sight and the world is bracing for tumultuous few months. CNN Richard's Quest explains what will happen next.

RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR AT LARGE: Right, Victor. Let's take a look and see how this all fits together. The Straits of Hormuz is obviously where it all begins. And the first area that's truly affected is Southeast Asia and China and all around this area. That is number one. We've been there, they're already feeling the effects. The economic damage is being done.

After that, you're talking about Africa and Europe, because that's the longer way to get the energy and the oil around. And so, that is the second area. We're sort of heading to that danger point now. Then you come to the United States, which is number three. And the reason is it takes that much longer, 35 to 45 to 50 days, to get over there.

Now, once you get to the United States, the problems become slightly different because there's no shortage of fuel in the U.S. at the moment. What you do have, of course, is input costs, manufacturing, driving costs, delivery prices. So, in the United States it's all about the price of gasoline and that's affected by the international markets which of course have gone up.

So, the U.S. may not be directly affected in terms of deliveries but most certainly is feeling the effects. The longer this goes on, the worse it will get. Remember, you have number one which is Asia, number two, Europe and Africa, number three, the United States, and really it just depends all on what happens at the Strait of Hormuz.

(CROSSTALK)

BLACKWELL: All right, Richard Quest --

QUEST: It's a fascinating tale, Victor, as I think you'll find and agree.

BLACKWELL: Richard Quest, thank you so much for the explanation. Let's talk about the political fallout now. The former New Jersey Democratic Congressman Tom Malinowski and CNN political commentator and Republican strategist, Brad Todd. Welcome to your both.

Brad, let me start with you. You heard what Richard said there, that the worst is yet to come -- you heard from the E.U. Energy Commissioner. When the President says as soon as the U.S. leaves, the prices are going to come tumbling down, is he ignoring those facts or just not being honest with the American people?

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, they'll begin to come down. And of course, this is a problem at seven presidents in the making. We have known that the Iranian government was projecting terror abroad to its neighbors. We've known that they were a source of instability for energy in the world. And presidents haven't had the guts to do anything about it.

The Europeans actually have made it worse. They initiated the JCPOA to try to basically put Iran on a glide path to have capability for nuclear power which put them on the cusp of a nuclear weapon. So, Europe deserves what it's about to get in higher oil prices because they've also been a party to coddling the Iranian regime. This had to happen.

(CROSSTALK)

BLACKWELL: But the American people are paying those higher prices, as well, and you say that the prices will start to come down. If the President withdraws the U.S. from this conflict without securing the opening of the strait, what suggests that the prices are going to come down because that's the pressure point that's causing the increase in gas prices?

TODD: Oh, I'm concerned about that. I think we can't leave until the strait is secured and until the Iranian regime is brought to heel. At that point, I think it's possible for us to invite our Asian allies, Korea and Japan. They have ample defense forces. They can come help shoulder some of that burden.

But I am concerned that we'd leave too soon. We have to stay long enough to bring the Iranian regime to heel and stop Iran's ability to manipulate world oil prices.

BLACKWELL: Tom, you think the President's going to withdraw the U.S. before opening the strait?

TOM MALINOWSKI (D) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FOR NEW JERSEY: Yes, of course. Because the only way to reopen the strait by military force is to invade Iran, and he's never going to do that. And more to the point, Iran knows that he's never going to do that. They've never had more leverage over the United States than they do today.

And, you know, one of the perverse outcomes of this war, which has done so much harm to American national security, is that we are actually going to leave Iran in control of the Straits of Hormuz, which it did not have before, it will control the straits in the way that Egypt controls the Suez Canal.

And the cost of changing that at this point is so great that I want the President to lie to himself. I want the President to bullshit (ph) his way into a withdrawal which I think is unfortunately going to be the least bad outcome for the United States of America.

[23:35:06]

That's the situation that we're in right now.

TODD: But Tom, why shouldn't Democrats stand with the President and encourage him, give him as much rope as he needs? Why shouldn't he encourage him to stay until the job is done?

MALINOWSKI: What do you mean by stay? I mean --

TODD: Stay until Iran's crippled. MALINOWSKI: Iran's not going to be crippled. We are - we are -- do you

even understand how, what percentage of our munitions we have already expended? In the first days of this war, we have expended hundreds more patriot interceptors than Lockheed produces in a year.

TODD: So, is it the policy of Democrats that Iran should be left alone and let it terrorize its neighbors in the Middle East and destabilize the world?

MALINOWSKI: We had leverage over Iran. We had deterrence over Iran. Iran was not posing an imminent threat to the United States. It had no missiles capable of reaching us. It was not enriching uranium.

Now, it is left with a regime that is more radical and more dangerous than it had before with control of one of the biggest economic choke points in the world. And we have depleted weaponry that we absolutely desperately need to deal with the real threats to American national security and those of Russia and China.

It is a disaster for American national security. And the sooner the President cuts these terrible losses, the better off we will all be as terrible as this outcome is.

TODD: How do we explain that the Americans that died in Beirut and the embassy in Lebanon and on 10-7 in Israel? American citizens died in those places because of Iran.

MALINOWSKI: They did. They did. And I would love to see this brutal, awful regime overthrown by the Iranian people. But it is not going to happen under these circumstances, and I do not want thousands of Americans to die in an invasion which is the only thing that honestly can achieve that outcome by military means.

And I don't think the President wants to do that, either, which is why, look, he has a tendency to blunder his way into trouble and to bullshit (ph) his way out of trouble. And tomorrow, I think we're going to see a lot of bullshit (ph). And hopefully, it's going to be enough to convince him because he has an audience of himself right now. He has to lie to himself in order to pull back from this mistake that he made. And I hope he does it.

BLACKWELL: Yes, and meantime, the President is focused on his ballroom. And of course, there was this ruling from the federal judge that says that the construction must stop until unless -- unless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop. What do make of the ruling?

TODD: Well, the judge himself said that this is going to be appealed. He knows it's going to go of the Supreme Court. He at one point in the hearing admonished counsel that, oh, you'll get your choice to air this at the Court of Review. You know, there are 19 exclamation points in the ruling. It's not a real serious ruling. He knows this is a first step.

Harry Truman added the South Portico with a defiance of every other body and of Congress. FDR built the East Wing that President Trump tore down with a military bunker underneath it, like President Trump is trying to build it on his own. There's a fairly long tradition of presidents having a fair amount of leeway.

I think in the end that's what the Supreme Court's going to rule, but this is just an intermittent step and that's where we're going as the Supreme Court.

BLACKWELL: Tom?

MALINOWSKI: Yes, I mean presidents have always had some leeway to fix things and to improve things, but like there's, I think we can all agree there's got to be some limit. Like, can a president, any president, like tear down the entire White House and build a steel and glass casino? We'd probably agree without Congress they couldn't do that.

Like, could Joe Biden, after the Democrats lost the last election, could he have just torn down the White House and left Donald Trump a gaping hole? I hope the answer is no. And so, what the courts have to decide here is what is the limit? And for me, this giant, I think it's kind of a monstrosity, qualifies as on the other side of that limit.

If it's built, here's what I would do if I were advising the next president. Turn it into a museum of the American Constitution. I think there's only -- there's only one thing I can justify being bigger than the President's House on that property and that's something that celebrates what is actually supposed to govern this country.

BLACKWELL: All right. Tom, Brad, thank you both.

TODD: Thanks a lot.

MALINOWSKI: Thank you.

BLACKWELL: Up next, if you're born in the U.S., you're a citizen. But not if the Supreme Court decides otherwise. What you need to know about the landmark case being argued at the Supreme Court tomorrow. Plus, what Tiger Woods is saying after that DUI arrest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:44:08]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: -- going.

UNKNOWN: You're going to go (inaudible).

TRUMP: I think so. I do believe --

UNKNOWN: (inaudible)

TRUMP: Because I have listened to this argument for so long.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLACKWELL: You heard there the President says that he will be at the Supreme Court tomorrow where the justices will hear one of the most consequential cases of his presidency. Whether to end the way birthright citizenship has been understood for more than a century. Now, this all started with the President's executive order to limit it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It had to do with the babies of slaves and the protection of the babies of slaves. It didn't have to do with the protection of multi-millionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get an American citizenship. It is the craziest thing I've ever seen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Well, let's consult the Constitution on that. The 14th Amendment lays it out very clearly.

[23:45:00]

Quote, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Joining me now is CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliott Williams. Elliott, good to see you.

ELLIOTT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Of course, Sir.

BLACKWELL: All right. So, let's get to those words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Of course, that will be the focus for the administration. Explain why.

WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, the language of the 14th Amendment clause that you're talking about there is quite clear, Victor. Everyone born in the United States is a citizen. Now, that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," it's really been a fringe legal theory for a long time, but still a theory, nonetheless, that that really is only intended to apply to the children of diplomats, some people in Native American on reservations and wherever else.

And this idea that folks who are not lawfully present in the country are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore can be removed from the country. Again, fringe legal theory or at least not a widely held legal theory.

Over the course of literally the last 150 years, courts that have looked at this issue, Congress has legislated on this issue -- has found quite consistently that the 14th Amendment says, if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen of the United States. And so, they're really stretching the law here (inaudible) --

(CROSSTALK)

BLACKWELL: Is it your expectation that the justices won't buy the argument based on how you laid out the argument to the last century or so?

WILLIAMS: I think so. Every single court to have looked at this issue has found -- lower courts, not just the United States, and only their word matters here, but every lower court to have looked at this issue has found quite consistently that it is just not a persuasive argument to say that when you read that language, people born in the United States are citizens of the United States. There just is not another plausible reading of it.

Now, they might try to find some way to say that, look, over the course of these last two centuries, immigration has become something different. This is what the President was saying just a moment ago, that we just live in a different world than we did in 1776 or whatever else. But even then, the language is clear. If you don't like the language, amend the constitution. It's hard, but there's a way to do it.

BLACKWELL: Yes. I want you to listen to something the President said, his answer when he was asking about the justices on this issue, specifically when he talks about the justices he appointed. Let's watch that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Now, the Republicans tend to be very different. They want to show how honorable they are. So, a man can appoint them and they can rule against them. It's so proud of it. We're so proud we ruled against Trump. We're so proud. We're above it. There are those that say that's wonderful and there are those that say they're so stupid.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: What's the significance of his presence in the courtroom tomorrow for these arguments?

WILLIAMS: It's really not good. It is a co-equal branch of government and we really do have this concept of separation of powers. Think about the President's State of the Union annual address to Congress. It's explained in the Constitution that the president shall from time to time report to Congress.

You don't really see the President going to visit Congress under the normal course of affairs because it is really seen as an intrusion into their work. The President showing up at the Supreme Court really is a thumb on the scale of the sort that we really don't see in this country. It's just not a good idea.

Let the Supreme Court do their work. Sometimes they're going to rule the president's way. Many times they will not, but that's okay. And that's the side of the healthy government. This idea that him there looking down at -- not a good idea.

BLACKWELL: Elliott Williams, thank you.

WILLIAMS: Always great, Victor. Thanks. BLACKWELL: All right. Up next, Tiger Woods says he's stepping away to

seek treatment after his DUI arrest. Jemele Hill is here to talk about it after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:53:38]

BLACKWELL: Tiger Woods is taking a break. He's announced that he's stepping away from competitive golf and getting help after his roll over crash. He wrote, "I know and understand the seriousness of the situation I find myself in today. I'm stepping away for period of time to seek treatment and focus on my health. I'm committed to taking the time needed to return in a healthier, stronger, and more focused place, both personally and professionally."

Now, the statement came just hours after he pleaded not guilty to DUI charges and demanded a jury trial. Today, police revealed that two prescription opioid pills were found in his pocket during his arrest on Friday.

Joining me now, contributing writer for "The Atlantic" and host of the podcast, "Jemele Hill is Unbothered," Jemele Hill. Jemele, hello to you. Let's start here. This is not the first time that Tiger has sought treatment for prescription drug problems. What do you make of his decision to seek help now?

JEMELE HILL, "THE ATLANTIC" CONTRIBUTING WRITER: I think it's a good decision. I mean, clearly with the number of incidents that he has had involving, you know, being under the influence and driving that at this point is a pattern and it needed to be addressed. And I think for a lot of Tiger Woods fans are glad he's addressing it.

But I think there's probably a lot of, I don't know, skepticism at this point.

[23:55:02]

And that's not to sound unsympathetic, but we've sort of been on this path with him before. And it didn't seem like he was getting the message. And I'm wondering how is this case or this this incident different than the others in which we would be more hopeful or be led to believe that he actually is intentional about correcting the problem.

BLACKWELL: Yes, listen to Stephen A. Smith here, his thoughts on it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN A. SMITH, "THE STEPHEN A. SMITH SHOW" HOST: I'm not saying this to castigate and vilify Tiger Woods, but how forgiving as a society are we supposed to be with this proclivity or tendency that you have to get behind the wheel of a car when you are inebriated? Whoa, are we not going to be satisfied until he kills somebody?

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLACKWELL: Yes, we're kind of getting to that point of, you know, this is obviously a pattern here. How do you think his fans will see this?

HILL: Well, I think a lot of fans probably feel the way that Stephen A. Smith does in the sense that they, you know, one time, okay, two times, three times, I mean, is just like enough is enough. However, even within that frustration that some of his fans may feel, I caution people to really dig deep and understand and do their own research about addiction.

And it's sad and it's unfortunate, but if you talk to any addict, and a lot of people have addicts in their family, a lot of people have been through this personally, is that, you know, as much as you may think it's one rock bottom moment, it might be several. And that is not to let Tiger Woods off the hook, but that is to say that part of the reason if addiction really is sort of at the core of this, because I like to think if you were saying talking about treatment, what are you being treated for?

And it seems like there's a pattern of addiction here. Then, yay, if it is a pattern of addiction, then he may reach the same point multiple times. And that's frustrating. I get it. I understand that it's not going to create a lot of sympathy, but this is part of the pattern of addiction.

BLACKWELL: Yes, and of course, as he posted on social media, he is putting his health first to seek this treatment, focus on his health, but he was just attempting a comeback. Tiger has been here before though, after the 2017 DUI, 2019 he turns around and wins the Masters. What do you think this means for his comeback, for his career though?

HILL: Yes, I think this is a little bit of a different stage. We know that Tiger has sustained a lot of energy -- injuries that his deterioration physically as a golfer has been kind of a back and forth story. I think golf is frankly the least of -- should be released to his concerns.

I think it should be the least of his fans concerned is like, I think a lot of people who support Tiger Woods want to see him do well, want to frankly see his story into certain way. And who cares about the golf part? The part that everybody should care about is like, is he putting himself in the best position to get the help that he needs?

BLACKWELL: Let's talk about Jaden Ivey now. Chicago Bulls announced that they are parting ways with him after he made anti-LGBTQ remarks criticizing the NBA's Pride Month celebrations, other comments attacking Catholics. I should note that he's spoken this season about his struggles with depression. What do you make of that decision by the team?

HILL: It's understandable. I'm sure, you know, the last straw is not the only straw and I want people to understand that. I'm not trying to minimize any of the things that he said about the queer community, any of the things that he said about Catholics. But it just feels like that there was clearly an established pattern here, and the team realized that this is something that they could not handle and could not deal with anymore.

Now, I'm from Detroit. I'm a Pistons fan. Jaden Ivey is somebody my team drafted. And when you read the reports by reporters who were here, and I can tell you from people that I know, on the ground, they kind of, they, not kind of, they said that this behavior, an absent of the Instagram lives.

But the behavior that people are reporting is consistent of what happened in Detroit where he was, you know, confronting reporters about their religious beliefs, asking them about sort of their, you know, whether or not they were fornicating. I mean, all of this is kind of been reported on at this point.

And so, when you see someone in a state of mind that causes some concern where there is a lot of rambling, he's dragging Steph Curry into this, LeBron James, I immediately wondered about the state of his mental health.

[00:00:05]

And I think a lot of people walk away with that same impression. And again, that's not to minimize what he said about LGBTQ plus people. That's not to minimize what he said about Catholicism being a fake religion. But this just felt very much to me like somebody having an episode.

BLACKWELL: Yes, Jemele Hill, thank you for the conversation. And that does it for me tonight. "The Story Is with Elex Michelson" is next.