Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Tentative Iran Deal Puts Trump's "Better" Deal Promise to the Test; Report: White House Intervened for Trump Jr.; Democrats Eye Opening in Texas Senate Race Against Paxton. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired May 28, 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]

JESSE ARM, VICE PRESIDENT AND POLLSTER, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: I'm a Detroit guy. So, I would say maybe Detroit Pistons finals tickets. But I don't think the get in price would ever be that high, $3,500. So, I said a Detroit Lions Super Bowl, which I do think with flights and hotel and everything, if I could get that done for $3,500.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Adding flights and hotels. We're talking about just the ticket.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Anyone would go to Paris to see Celine Dion for $3,500?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I would definitely fly to Madrid to see Bad Bunny.

PHILLIP: OK. There you go. All right, everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can stream the show any time with an All Access subscription in the CNN app or at cnn.com/watch. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Progress? A tentative agreement with Iran? It's all waiting for President Trump's sign-off, apparently. But will the deal match his promises? Plus, new report, new corruption allegations. Democrats seize on claims that the White House tried to intervene to get a deal for a company linked to Don Jr. And James Talarico raising big money against Ken Paxton. But can he actually turn Texas blue? The man who came close, Beto O'Rourke, joins me tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, President Trump now got to show what better actually means because he has long promised to deal with Iran that is stronger than the one he got rid of. And now, with a tentative agreement on the table, that promise is no longer just rhetoric. We're learning the United States and Iran have reached what's being called a memorandum of understanding. Secretary of treasury says it all comes down to the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: Everything depends on what the president wants to do, and President Trump is not going to make a bad deal for the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But the president hasn't publicly weighed in, and we're told he hasn't yet signed off. So, what's the hold up? Well, the vice president gave some hints and also made clear the whole thing is still very much an open question.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, I think it's hard to say exactly when or if the president is going to sign the MOU. We're going back and forth on a couple of language points. There are a couple of issues on the nuclear stuff, the highly- enriched stockpile, and also the question of enrichment. Hopefully, we'll continue to make progress. The president will be in a position where he can endorse the agreement. But, obviously, that's still TBD.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Did you hear the when or if? That's important along with TBD. Kind of like Trump's big decision. Because here's where the rubber meets the road. Trump has been trashing the Iran nuclear deal negotiated under President Obama for years. And he said it again yesterday in front of his entire cabinet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I didn't do this to get that crummy agreement. The worst agreement ever signed was by Barack Hussein Obama. What a horrible agreement that was. It was a path for Iran to have a nuclear weapon very quickly. Years ago, they would have had nuclear weapon. We might not be here talking about it right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And even more importantly, apparently, he has been hyping up something very different than what Obama negotiated. I mean, especially since the war started. And not just a better deal, but a far better deal. Now, in his words, the exact opposite of Obama's nuclear agreement. So, is this tentative agreement actually better than that? I mean, well, it would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war started.

But beyond that, what we're talking about right now isn't a final deal that shuts down Iran's nuclear program. First to say that it would trigger a 60-day negotiation period to address it. Not dismantle it, address it. So, this isn't a "set in stone" kind of deal. It's an agreement to keep talking about a deal.

And that may be why the president has not weighed in yet and why the administration is saying TBD. Because if he wants to call this a far better deal, isn't it going to be a tough sell if it just kicks the can down the road for 60 days? Wasn't that one of his last points about allowing for it to happen in the future? And he needs to ultimately deliver what he has been promising, which is a deal that looks nothing like Obama's and actually settles, settles the nuclear question.

[23:04:56]

I want to begin with former Democratic congressman, Tom Malinowski, retired rear admiral, Mark Montgomery, and former State Department Middle East negotiator, Aaron David Miller. I want to begin with you, Aaron, on this because, look, this would be a deal to start talking about a deal, this new 60-day window to hammer out the details on Iran's nuclear program. First of all, is that even a realistic timeline to get the kind of deal that Trump has been promising?

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE: Not if he's interested in -- thanks for having me. It's great to be with Mark and Tom. Not if he's interested in vesting the JCPOA away, which took two and a half years to negotiate, was under verification and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

No. I think what we bought, frankly, if it happens, is a ticket, a ticket to negotiations which -- we talked about this before -- are going to resemble a combination of migraine headaches and root canals for as long as they last because the gaps between the Iranian position -- and we're not even clear what the supreme leader's position or the IRGC position is on the strait. They're not going to open up per American wishes and aspirations. It's going to be a bargaining chip. So, again, it would buy time and space, wanted to test the proposition that, in fact, you can reconcile American and Iranian positions.

One last point. You can't do this stuff on a cellphone. You can't do it through intermediaries. You can't do it on the back of a cocktail napkin. You're going to have to have real negotiations with American negotiators and their teams sitting down with Iranians and their teams. Otherwise, frankly, this is going to be a deal, and it will be a memorandum of misunderstanding.

COATES: Important point. I mean, congressman, let ask you because the president is fixated on publicly framing this deal as a clear win over what Aaron talked about, 2015 Obama agreement. Even if this is tentative, it just starts the nuclear talks really yet again. Is that better than what has been happening in the last three months?

TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: Oh, my gosh, yes.

COATES: Is it enough, though?

MALINOWSKI: Look, he has to end the war. And to end the war, he has to lie to himself. He has to tell himself that he's getting something great, something better than Obama. But he's not. I mean, it's actually pitiful. It's embarrassing. He's going to end the war with no deal on the nuclear issues, number one.

COATES: You really think so?

MALINOWSKI: Well, yes, because what they're talking about is a memorandum of understanding, as you said, to talk about the nuclear issues later. In the meantime, the Strait of Hormuz reopen and the shooting stops. So, he's going to end the war without a deal.

Iran knows perfectly well, we can all see it, that he doesn't want to go back to the war because he does not believe that Iran is a problem worth sending thousands of Americans to die for or ruining the American economy over. Iran knows that, so they have the negotiating leverage.

The best we are going to get, if we get anything, is something that resembles the hated Obama nuclear deal. That is not going to permanently or completely dismantle the nuclear program, just bring it within thresholds with international inspectors.

So, all of the suffering, all of the death, all of the costs of this war will have been just to get us back to where Trump started when he scrapped the deal.

COATES: Well, admiral, do you share the, well, pessimism or ideas of how this might or not be successful?

MARK MONTGOMERY, RETIRED REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY: I do agree that it's going to be initially just solving the Strait of Hormuz issue, which is something -- you know, our blockade, Navy blockade, has pressured their economy. But then, they're cutting off other flow. The Strait of Hormuz has put pressure on our trading partners.

COATES: Yes.

MONTGOMERY: And so, we need to get the Strait of Hormuz open. The president better makes sure he does that without granting some level of sovereignty or control to Iran and -- Iran or Oman, either grouping.

COATES: They've already taken that sovereignty. Almost weaponizing geography, right?

MONTGOMERY: They stated. They're always going to have influence because of geography. But they should not -- we should never acknowledge any sovereign role there. That would open up a can of worms.

I will say, one thing is different, which is we have significantly reduced the ballistic missile drone, naval mine capabilities. They're not zero and they're not as low as the president implies, but they're definitely reduced from where they were. And in some areas, particularly in short range and intermediate range ballistic missiles, it was necessary to knock that down. That probably didn't require a 40-day air combat campaign, but we did knock that down. And we did destroy a lot of the defensive industrial base that allows them to rebuild that.

Again, that's not the justification for the war we've heard from the president, but those are some advantages that come from the campaign. So, it was not for nothing, but it was not for what he claims.

COATES: The word advantage is in my mind, Aaron, because I wonder about the advantages that Iran has or if the United States is getting enough upfront here, if Iran is getting relief, and then those hardest nuclear questions are still looming.

[23:10:06]

MILLER: Yes. I mean, I think even if you do end up with some agreement that places some restrictions on enrichment and there is some indication that the Iranians are maybe more flexible about diluting or shipping out, not to the United States, but shipping out to a third party, the 900 pounds of highly-enriched uranium, which is only 30 percent more in your bomb grade.

But since leaving the JCPOA -- let me be clear. This was a flawed but highly functional agreement. Since leaving the JCPOA in 2018, the Iranians have enriched at varying levels 11 tons of uranium. They have a nuclear infrastructure, which has been degraded to a degree, but it is going to be rebuilt because the folks that are running this country now, the IRGC.

You moved from clerical domination, I think, to a military dictatorship. This war has persuaded them. I think that had they had a deliverable weapon, the United States and Israel might not have struck. So, I think it could easily accelerate rather than constrain what they want to do. They now believe they hold cards on both the nuclear

issue and on the strait.

One last point: For Donald Trump and for this country, this is not existential. For these guys, this brutal repressive authoritarian regime, they know they lose power. That's the end. And, you know, in an existential conflict, it is those who are prepared to fight to the end and to avoid making concessions that really do have the leverage of time. And I think that's another advantage to end where we started with your point.

COATES: Well, admiral, let me -- you want to -- you have response to that?

MONTGOMERY: I think one of the things that's going to come from this is the American people are going to learn what the term "mow the lawn" means because I think we're going to have to come back. What's going to happen is we're not going to get the deal we need. We are going to always be suspicious of ballistic missile activity and the development of the weapon. And what the Israelis have to do to their neighbors, particularly Hezbollah, which is go in and they call it "mow the lawn" but do significant combat operations for a five, six, seven-day period.

We're probably going to have to learn what that means because I don't think we're going to get a negotiated settlement that meets the president's -- that leaves America secure. And I do think they'll sprint to a bomb, and we can't have another nuclear power like North Korea with a weapon and willingness to use it.

MALINOWSKI: I think it has actually taken away our power to mow the lawn because the president is not going to want to restart even a small conflict that provokes Iran to shut down the strait or attack shipping in the Persian Gulf because he has seen what that does to our economy.

We had military leverage over Iran before this because, you know, the ayatollah didn't want to die. They didn't want to absorb this kind of punishment. But they have now absorbed the worst we have to meet out short of an invasion and survived. I don't think he's going to want to do it again. So, this puts us, ironically, even though we've destroyed a lot of what they had, in a weaker position militarily vis-a-vis Iran. A horrible, horrible mistake that I'll be glad if he gets out of this week.

COATES: Gentlemen, thank you all for your expertise this evening. Up next, Democrats accusing the administration of corruption just as a new report claims the White House helped to steer a major Pentagon deal to a company tied to Donald Trump Jr. Plus, new questions about the DOJ's decision to investigate E. Jean Carroll for potential perjury. George Conway was the one who advised her to sue Trump in the first place. He's live with me to talk about all of this, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, for months now, Democrats have been hammering the administration for what they say is a pattern of alleged corruption. And tonight, they're seizing on a new report. It's from ProPublica. And here's the headline: "The White House intervened to get a $620 million deal for a company tied to Donald Trump Jr."

Now, their report says the six-figure deal was awarded to a small startup in North Carolina. And according to ProPublica, Don Jr.'s venture capital firm has an undisclosed stake in that company. And the report also says the request to loan the money came from Trump advisor, Peter Navarro.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT FATURECHI, REPORTER, PROPUBLICA: Peter Navarro originally pushed this deal to the Pentagon. And the thinking within the division of the Pentagon that handles these kinds of loans was the call came from the White House, we have to get this done. Three months after Don Jr.'s firm invested in this small North Carolina startup, you know, the Defense Department went in and gave this company a record-breaking loan. We're talking about potentially hundreds of millions of dollars if all conditions are met.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, a spokesperson for Don Jr. tells ProPublica he was not involved in the deal. Now, as for Peter Navarro, he calls the report just total B.S. With me now, George Conway, prominent conservative attorney who is running for Congress as a Democrat in New York's 12th congressional district.

[23:20:01] George, good to see you. Listen, I mean, you say this deal is mind- blowingly corrupt. Now, ProPublica reports Democrats tried to subpoena Don Jr. on this very deal, but they were blocked by Republicans. Does that surprise you that there seems to be no interest in questioning any of these kinds of deals or reports?

GEORGE CONWAY, NEW YORK U.S HOUSE CANDIDATE, ATTORNEY: It doesn't surprise me at all. The Republicans know that this is -- this is -- they have to know that this is the most corrupt administration in American history. If a Democrat had done this, if Hunter Biden had secured a loan for a company, a portfolio company he was invested in, $620 million, and his friend at the White House had called the Pentagon to get the deal done, I mean, that's a million times more than they ever had on Hunter Biden. It's absolutely insane. It's absolutely hypocritical.

And in any normal administration, at any normal time, this would be a Watergate or Teapot Dome-level scandal. And what's happening here is we're having scandals like this every week, just literally every week and sometimes daily. And it's just -- there are no words to really describe the depth of the depravity and the mendacity and the corruption that we're seeing from this administration. It's just absolutely shocking by any standard.

COATES: Well, you know, weaponization is a word we keep hearing a lot about, as you well know. I mean, sources are telling CNN that the DOJ has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll who you actually advised to sue the president for defamation for denying he sexually assaulted her. Now, Trump denies the assault and the U.S. attorney in Illinois says that there is no probe. But prosecutors are looking at Carroll's 2022 deposition where she said that she had no outside funding for her legal fees, though it was later revealed that she did.

Talk to me as a lawyer first here. What do you think about even the existence of an investigation such as this?

CONWAY: It is absolutely absurd. It is -- it is the ultimate form of retribution. He was found to have digitally raped a woman.

COATES: Well, sexual abuse was the word that they used.

CONWAY: But I'm saying digitally raped. That's what -- you know. And the judge said three times that he was a -- that in common parlance, Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll. And the jury had to have found that he -- he did to E. Jean Carroll what he said he did to women on the Billy Bush tape. And that's why I call him an adjudicated digital rapist.

COATES: I will say again, though, George, you know that the lawyer in me is telling you --

CONWAY: The lawyer in you --

COATES: --- you know what is -- what actually the -- the actual conviction was. But go ahead. CONWAY: The conviction -- the conviction was for sexual abuse under New York law. Sexual abuse under New York law involves penetration of the vagina by something other than a penis, which to me and what the judge said in the colloquial terms, is rape. Full stop. And that's what the jury -- the judge found out three times.

And so, the fact of the matter is he's going after her because she proved, and he failed to testify. He refused. He was too cowardly to testify at the trial to counter her testimony, the testimony of Natasha Stoynoff and another person who E. Jean Carroll told at the time about what had happened at Bergdorf Goodman.

And this fake investigation, this B.S. investigation, has nothing to do with her testimony that was unrebutted at trial about having been penetrated by Donald Trump's hand. In fact, all it has to do with is whether she understood or misunderstood whether or not her lawyers were sharing some of the risk of their contingency arrangement with somebody else.

And that's a very common arrangement, as you know, as a lawyer, where sometimes, you know, plaintiffs, law firms, people representing plaintiffs who are going up against a well-heeled defendant or a corporation will sometimes offload some of the risk by having a litigation funder fund some of the costs of an expensive litigation as time goes on.

E. Jean Carroll was not concerned with those details. What she was concerned with was whether or not she was going to have to pay for the cost of the litigation between the time the complaint was filed and the time she got $88.3 million in judgments rightly awarded by the jury.

So, it's a ludicrous claim of perjury. It was immediately -- the testimony that was erroneous was immediately corrected by counsel. And there was really no reason -- she had no reason to be deceptive on that. It was just something that is, you know, a victim of sexual abuse and somebody who is a plaintiff. It's just some detail that she just didn't understand or didn't remember.

COATES: And yet there's an investigation --

CONWAY: Absolutely.

COATES: -- and, you know, perjury charges if those should result are also very difficult to prove for a variety of reasons. But let me turn to this because you said at the beginning of our conversation, your campaign, George, is really built in part on calling out what you say is corruption from this president and removing him from office immediately.

[23:25:06]

I mean, your party, though, is not totally sold on this. You're running as a Democrat. And Leader Hakeem Jeffries has said that impeachment is not a top priority. So, explain. What makes you think that pushing for impeachment would be a politically-winning message? CONWAY: Because it's -- it's -- look, it's not about whether it's a politically-winning message. The question of impeachment and removal is about the integrity of this country. It is about the integrity of our Constitution. It is about whether or not we have a government of laws and not of men. It is about whether or not we're going to have a criminal convicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser who continually commits crime each and every week of the year, who is running the government as essentially a mob operation, who's making $4 billion while he has been in office. An absolute, absolute, absolute abomination and an absolute inversion of the oath of office. That's the question. And it is up to Congress.

Courts can't stop this. Courts weren't meant to stop this. The Constitution of the United States is drafted by its framers. It was intended that a corrupt criminal president like this one has to be removed by Congress. And it is not a question of politics or polls or points, it's a question of simple justice and simply upholding our country as a nation of laws.

And if we don't do it -- the damage that he has done in just the last 14 months is just staggering, absolutely staggering. We can't survive the rest of his term without removing him from office. And we can't make the changes that we need in our society, in our economy, without getting rid of him.

COATES: I hear you. The politics here is really in the face of so many voters. I mean, you have said that you think Republicans will want to be done with Trump before 2029. You've outlined reasons why you believe they should be. But we did just see Senator Cassidy, for example, lose his seat because he voted to impeach Trump. So, do you think Republicans and Cassidy's but one will dare to cross Trump on this issue even based on the philosophical debate that you're having?

CONWAY: Well, look at what it has done. Look what kowtowing to Trump has done for Bill Cassidy, for John Cornyn. It has done absolutely nothing. And these men are angry. These senators are angry. They are angry because, you know, they gave Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, a hard time about the weaponization fund, the $1.8 million slush fund. They know it's wrong.

COATES: Billion.

CONWAY: Billion. I'm sorry. Billion. What's a billion?

(LAUGHTER)

What's a billion among friends? They know -- they know darn well how corrupt this administration is. And they are starting to feel the heat because Americans are starting to feel the pain of the tariffs, of the increased gasoline prices.

And they are watching. Trump, you know, talks about his ballroom and holding a UFC event at the White House, tearing down the East Wing and wanting to put up a triumphal arch, and they're paying higher prices at the grocery store for rent and at the gas pumps.

COATES: And the list goes on.

CONWAY: And there's going to be a political price to pay. And these cowardly Republican senators are sooner or later going to be more afraid of the people who put them in office than Donald Trump.

COATES: George Conway, thank you. A reminder, my political panel will join me little later on tonight. So, go ahead and send in your questions or comments for us to talk about. Send them to us at cnn.com/asklaura. You know what? You got your phone in front of you, right? How about you text us, 818-972-7272? Make sure you include a first name and your city or your state. Again, the number on the screen to text, 818-972-7272.

But first, James Talarico raised $3 million in a day as Democrats eye an upset over Ken Paxton in Texas. Can they actually flip the Senate seat? And what will it actually take? You know what? Beto O'Rourke has some ideas, and he'll share them, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: I got a message to Republicans in Texas and nationwide. Do not take this general election for granted.

UNKNOWN: Amen to that.

CRUZ: It is easy to say it's Texas, it's red, we're going to win. And I believe we are going to win. But I also think the Democrat nominee, James Telarico, is a dangerous candidate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: It is the question that pops up every couple of years. Is Texas actually in play for Democrats? Well, the party is feeling the hype yet again, and they're rallying behind the person they were just talking about, James Talarico. His campaign says it raised more than $3 million in the first 24 hours after Ken Paxton became his opponent for U.S. Senate.

And Paxton certainly has a lot of baggage. He has faced years of allegations over political corruption and, of course, his personal conduct as well. And he has denied all wrongdoing and says the attacks against him are politically-motivated.

But even some Republicans are warning that Paxton could be a tough sell come November. And if all of this sounds familiar, it's because Democrats have had high hopes in Texas before.

[23:35:04]

Beto O'Rourke came up short in 2018 Senate campaign against Ted Cruz and again in his 2022 run for governor against Greg Abbott. MJ Hegar and Colin Allred built up buzz in their Senate races. But Texas stayed red. So, is this time different?

Joining me now, someone who knows that question better than most, Beto O'Rourke himself. Beto, I'm glad that you are here. I have to know from your thinking. Can Talarico actually pull off what so many Democrats have failed to do thus far?

BETO O'ROURKE, FORMER TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is sure looking good so far. I mean, the fact that he drew Ken Paxton, who is the public face of corruption in the state of Texas. This is a guy who was found to be using his public office to benefit a donor, and it was uncovered by his own staff who reported him to federal authorities. He was impeached by the state legislature, which was controlled by members of his own party. He then fired his staff members who reported him. They want a settlement totaling $6.6 million that Texas taxpayers are going to have to pay. They're footing the bill for his corruption. That's who James Talarico is up against.

And Talarico himself is a guy who capped copays for insulin for diabetics in Texas at 25 bucks. He passed school finance reform to make sure that our local schools have the resources they need to teach our kids. And he's the guy that reduced the cost of childcare in Texas.

So, this guy has got a proven track record of getting things done for Texas, while Ken Paxton has a public track record of being the most corrupt politician in this state, if not this country right now. That's the kind of matchup that we want to see in Texas.

COATES: Well, let's talk about that matchup because the electorate in November will be very different than the primary that he just won. I mean, Trump won Texas by about 14 points. That was two years ago. He's going to have to convince many of those Trump voters to back him in order to win. So, how should Talarico tailor his message for the general election and also for those Cornyn voters?

O'ROURKE: I think he needs to keep doing exactly what he has been doing. He has opened the biggest tent that I have seen in Texas. It's open to progressives, to moderates, to independents, to Republicans as well. He's judging no one based on their party affiliation or who they voted for last time.

And Laura, what we're finding as we travel the state of Texas is there are a lot of people who voted for Trump hoping that he was going to improve their lives, their economic situation, the affordability of the things they depend on in order to live. In every instance, Trump has failed him.

We've seen some early positive signs that this failure is turning into victories for Democrats in Tarrant County, home to Fort Worth, the largest red urban district in the country. A Democrat defeated the Republican in a district that Trump won by 14 points in 2024. It was a 31-point swing altogether. We had another victory in Southeast Texas, in Brazoria County. So, things are looking good. And, in addition, there are 150 Democrats running for 150 state House seats, 38 Democrats running for 38 congressional seats, 16 Democrats running for 16 state Senate seats. We've never filled the ballot before since 1974.

So, half a century, we haven't had a fighter on every front. That's the team behind Talarico. You add Gina Hinojosa, who's running for governor, the rest of the statewide ticket. It's looking really good at a time that the president has never been more unpopular and you have a scandal-plagued corrupt opponent in Ken Paxton. These are the perfect conditions. Now, we can't promise anything.

COATES: Of course.

O'ROURKE: As you pointed out at the beginning, people have had their hearts broken by Texas before, but these are the conditions in which we want to run.

COATES: Well, you know, I looked this up because I was really curious about this in particular. And the polls had you with more than 80 percent support from Black voters when you ran in 2018. James Talarico, though, needs to make some serious inroads with those same voters after his primary against Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. How important is it for him to be able to win over Black voters in Texas?

O'ROURKE: It's critical. I mean, I think it's the ballgame. They'll say something about Jasmine Crockett. I think like James Talarico, she is a generational talent whose full story has yet to be told. There's a big future for her in Texas and, I think, nationwide.

You know, to show you what a class act she is, before the dust had settled on that primary fight on the night of March 3rd of this year, she reached out to her supporters across all of her channels, and she said, you know what, we came up a little bit short, we need to get behind this guy, support him, and make sure that he is the next U.S. senator for the state of Texas.

[23:40:03]

I think if James Talarico can make the most of what Jasmine Crockett is able to do -- she's absolutely electric in every room she's in. She lights it up. If those two can campaign together, if James Talarico will go out there and earn every single vote and take not a single one for granted, then he can win this incredibly important part of the electorate in Texas, which has more Black voters than any other state in the union.

So, it's an excellent question because it's absolutely imperative that he does that in order to win. But what I've seen from him so far is very encouraging. And if he continues that over the next five months, I think he's going to win this thing.

COATES: So, you believe he really does need Crockett's help more than just her asking her voters, even campaigning with him? O'ROURKE: I do. And, you know, again, I think Jasmine is such a public-minded person, is in this fight for life. And despite the bruising primary battle, she's going to do everything that she can, everything that it takes in order to make sure that James wins because it's not about James, it's about the people of Texas, it's about the United States.

This Senate seat will be the 51st vote in the U.S. Senate. That 51st vote will either be cast by Ken Paxton on every one of Donald Trump's corrupt priorities or it will be cast by James Talarico to fight corruption, to bring costs down, to ensure that more people can see a doctor or afford their prescriptions. That's the choice before Texas.

Jasmine gets that. I mean, she has more star power than anyone I can think of in Texas apart from James Talarico. When she uses that to connect with the electorate here, I think James is going to have more than an even shot of winning this in November.

COATES: Of course, they're going to try to talk about allegations of being a vegan and culture war issues against him to try to temper the allegations and these public sentiment against, of course, Ken Paxton. We are going to see how all that goes.

Beto, before we go, your name has come up a lot, a lot in recent weeks in discussions about this very race. Just -- just -- here's a little preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I think Beto O'Rourke, he got within three points --

DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER OBAMA SENIOR ADVISER: In 2018 of Ted Cruz.

UNKNOWN: Ted Cruz.

UNKNOWN: That's what Beto O'Rourke was able do in 2018.

UNKNOWN: Voters in Texas did not elect a far-left guy like Beto O'Rourke.

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: He's much different than Beto O'Rourke. He's different in the way that he delivers this stuff.

CRUZ: Their candidate is very reminiscent of Beto O'Rourke.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Obviously, you're living rent free in a lot of people's heads, politically speaking. Are you tired of all the comparisons or are there lessons from your races that Talarico should take into November?

O'ROURKE: You know, one of the great lessons that I learned from 2018 during Trump's first midterm is that having a strong ticket that you can run with means everything. The reason we got within 2.6 percent of Ted Cruz, the closest any Democrat has come in decades, is because you had all these down-ballot Democrats running in races that they had no business competing in.

One of them was James Talarico, this insurgent Democrat taking on an entrenched incumbent for a state House seat. And he won it as did 11 other insurgent Democrats that year. Colin Allred won against Pete Sessions. Lizzie Pannill Fletcher won in Southeast Texas. Nineteen Black women won election to judicial positions in Harris County, the home to Houston, Texas, the most diverse city in the United States of America, literally changing the face of criminal justice in the process.

I think James understands that. I think James is running with all of these Democrats on every front across the 254 counties. And, for sure, this guy is his own man. And it is so exciting to watch him. I mean, in my 53 years on this planet, I don't know that I've seen someone so talented in his ability to communicate, to connect, and to use these positions of public trust to do good for the people that he serves. I'm really excited about him.

COATES: Beto O'Rourke, thank you.

O'ROURKE: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Up next, are they serious or are they trolling everybody? The plan to put the president's face on a $250 bill. Plus, Democrats looking to 2028 now have one less choice to consider, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So, the administration just confirmed that they're hoping for a commemorative $250 bill with Trump's face on it. The Treasury says it's to mark America's 250th anniversary. It would be the latest branding exercise from the team that brought you the Trump banner on the DOJ, a Trump passport, a Trump gold card where foreigners can buy a fast track U.S. residency for a million bucks, a Trump commemorative gold coin, a Trump National Park pass featuring America's very first president and, of course, the newly-named Trump Kennedy Center.

Now, there is a law that does prevent putting a living person on U.S. money. This will actually require an act of Congress. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says, not an issue (ph).

[23:50:02]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BESSENT: I don't think that there's anything untoward about having the president of the United States, that the person who was president of United States is on the 250th anniversary bill. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: OK. Joining me now, political reporter and author Molly Ball along with Republican strategist Liam Donovan. Glad to have both of you guys here. OK, Molly, Democrats are mocking this. We knew they would. Frankly, Republicans probably are, too. Hillary Clinton, though, is doing so, who posted this: "By the end of Trump's term, it'll be just enough to buy one gallon of gas and a carton of eggs." I mean, this is fuel for a tax. Any value politically for Trump in doing this, though?

MOLLY BALL, POLITICAL REPORTER AND AUTHOR, FORMER SENIOR REPORTER FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, look, I think we should say that it's not really Trump doing this, right?

COATES: OK.

BALL: There is legislation in Congress proposed by a Republican who loves Trump very much in order to do this because, as you alluded to, the law would have to be changed to allow for a living person, president or not, to be on the currency. I learned to my great amusement that this law came about because, apparently, there was some Treasury official who put his face on the coin back in the 1800s. OK.

But, look, I mean, you don't see Trump out there being like, oh no, my modesty, I can't handle all of this adulation, right? He obviously loves it and welcomes it, and that's why people keep doing these things for him.

I think the bigger problem is exactly what Hillary Clinton said in that tweet, is that America isn't really in a celebratory mood right now, no matter how many parties this administration throws, you know, they're; doing. And I think there's a natural impulse to want the 250th birthday to be a big shebang and to be about America, if not this specific administration. I don't think anyone begrudges them that. But at a time when people are still feeling a lot of angst, particularly about the economy, but also about American foreign policy and various other things, I think that's what maybe sticks in people's cross (ph).

COATES: Does this drag on Republicans, given what she has described? I mean, the visual effect of this, even if it's not Trump himself.

LIAM DONOVAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE AIDE: We're not going to remember this a week from now. But I do think --

COATES: I might.

DONOVAN: Well --

(LAUGHTER)

-- it will be fodder for a cable. But I think this is -- it's a leak, number one, related to the legislation that Molly mentioned. But I think zooming out to the point that Molly made, which is -- look, we are coming up on what should be this big civic pageant where we can come together and maybe even we do need it most because things aren't going so great. It should be a time to come together.

So, I think it's really unfortunate that we're looking around in the last 48 hours what's happening with what should have been this grand celebration on the mall. Just the pressure from being associated with anything related to this administration is causing people to recoil. And it should not be that way. I think that's what -- that's what I'm thinking of in terms of going forward. This should be an opportunity to put those things aside. And, unfortunately, we're getting sidetracked on petty things about, you know, Donald Trump.

COATES: Well, they have stepped on their own rake a number of times. Let's go to the viewer questions here. We've got Jonathan from Austin, Texas. He has a question. How can Democrats be confident in the midterms this year when Republicans were hyping 2022 up to be a red tsunami year and it ended up being a pretty non-change election? Molly, you want to take it?

BALL: Absolutely. I love this question for a couple of different reasons. It enables me to do a couple of different types of myth busting here. So, myth number one, 2022 was still a Republican win. The Republicans won the House that year. Now, could they have won bigger? Sure. Was there a dampening effect? Probably from the Dobbs decision, sure. But that was still a normal midterm in a lot of regards in the sense that the party out of power won and the party in power lost a House of the Congress and also lost in terms of the popular vote in that midterm.

But the number one thing I would like viewers to take away from this, this is a big secret of political reporting, so I'm really speaking out of school here, we don't know what's going to happen in the election. So, no one can be confident. It hasn't happened yet. And there's all kinds of things that can happen.

And so, whenever you hear pundits saying like, oh, we know -- you know, we can be confident this is the pattern, it's just a prediction, it's not worth the paper it's printed on. We don't know what's going to happen in the election.

COATES: All right. We've got Lorraine from Roseville, California. She asks, if Trump is so unpopular, why does he still dominate the GOP? Liam?

DONOVAN: If you think about presidential popularity anymore, no president is getting more than 47-48 percent of the country that like them at given point. When they get into the independents not being crazy about the way gas prices are, things like that, you get down toward 40 percent.

Donald Trump is right around that 40 percent. That is the hard partisan. He still has a ton of power within the party, and I think, uniquely among presidents, has a willingness to enforce the party line and go after people that, you know, don't follow his line. I think it works both ways, that people understand, the members of Congress understand his power, and he's able to wield that because it works both directions.

[23:54:58]

COATES: I got a good question for both of you. Weigh in quickly. Lauren from Chicago asks, why does Trump feel that grocery and gas prices and tariff hardships of American companies will not translate into losses in the midterms?

BALL: That's quick. I mean, I don't -- I disagree with the premise. I think he does think that. But I think that -- what I've heard from my White House sources is that the president has basically given up on the midterms. He feels that they're lost no matter what he does. So, he might as well do what he wants.

DONOVAN: You can't say this is going to hurt us. That's not a -- that's not a politician's answer.

(LAUGHTER)

I don't think you can ever accept that premise.

BALL: You don't say it out loud, but you know it.

DONOVAN: Well, it's the power of positive thinking. That's his entire brand.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: OK. Positive thinking. Molly and Liam, thank you so much.

BALL: You have to manifest the midterms.

COATES: I'm going to manifest. I'm going to manifest, and I'm going to manifest on a Sunday. Thank you both. Up next, a tough day for Jeff Bezos and his rocket company, Blue Origin. Details after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking tonight, a Blue Origin rocket exploded on the launch pad during a ground test. The company, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, says the rocket experienced an anomaly. The rocket was said to carry 48 satellites for Amazon. Bezos put out a statement. "All personnel are accounted for and safe. It's too early to know the root cause but we're already working to find it."

Thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.