Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Shows Signs Of Backing Down Amid Legal Defeats; White House Releases Report Of Trump's Physical Exam; Bondi Shifts Responsibility Of Epstein Files To Blanche; Artists Bail On "Freedom 250" Concert; Erin Brockovich Joins Fight Against A.I. Data Centers. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired May 29, 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Craig Ferguson's "American on Purpose" premieres tomorrow at 9 p.m. on CNN. You can catch our "Table for Five" show tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. Eastern. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Tonight, a trifecta of legal rulings against President Trump, and two of them are putting his $1.8 billion anti- weaponization fund on life support. And after days of silence following Trump's visit to Walter Reed, his doctor has now released the results of his physical. We're going to talk about it. Plus, the Epstein fallout that the Trump administration can't seem to shake comes roaring back. And now, Democrats say the former attorney general, Pam Bondi, is throwing her replacement under the bus. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, my opening statement tonight, President Trump is doing something you rarely ever see him do, looking for the exit and actually walking out the door. It's all over a building just a few miles from where I'm sitting right now, the Kennedy Center in D.C. or what he wanted to call the Trump Kennedy Center.

Well, those letters he put up spelling out his name, they got to come down. And those doors he wanted to shut for what? Two years of renovations? They got to stay open. A federal judge in D.C. put the kibosh on the president's makeover plans and said the renaming violated the law. He wrote in his ruling, "Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it."

And you might have expected the usual Trump response, a threat to fight back, a vow to appeal, maybe a new nickname for the judge. Well, we did get one thing, the social media rant, a wall of text. I mean, he blamed the judge, he blamed the Democrats. But then in the third paragraph, he wiped his hands of the whole thing. He basically said, fine, Congress can have it back. He made it clear that he was frustrated with the push to stop him from trying to repair the building.

But that wasn't the only legal blow for Trump today because a different federal judge, this time in Virginia, temporarily blocked his $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund, the same fund getting derided as a political payout for his allies and January 6th rioters, which the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, says totally transparent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: People that hurt police get money all the time. OK? There's a process where -- where if you are -- if you are -- if you believe you have your rights violated, you can -- you can apply for fund, you can sue, you can file a claim, you can go to court. In some of those cases, the state, the government, the federal government settles those cases.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But wait, there's more. A third federal judge now wants answers about the settlement that created the fund in the first place. You know the lawsuit that Trump filed against his own government and was settled by his own government? Well, she says she wants to investigate whether the deal was based on deception.

And to top it all off, "The Wall Street Journal" put this out tonight. New reporting that the White House is freaking out over the GOP backlash to the fund. The first line says President Trump's top aides have discussed whether he should kill the administration's nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund in exchange for getting immigration enforcement funding passed next month. Sources tell the Journal that Trump hasn't agreed to drop it, but he has admitted to allies that he knows he's got problems with, Senate Republicans. The question is, are those problems big enough to make him look for, well, another exit?

I want to begin tonight with the former federal prosecutor, Ryan Croswell, who actually resigned over pressure to end the criminal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. He recently ran for Congress as a Democrat in Pennsylvania. Ryan, good to see you. I mean, so much is happening. The courts, obviously, in session.

[23:05:00]

And not only is the fund frozen for now, but a separate judge also reopened that IRS case that he settled through the DOJ and the judge wants Trump's attorneys to explain how this was an appropriate way to resolve it. How are they going to do it?

RYAN CROSSWELL, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Laura, thanks for having me back. It's incredible. I mean, we're talking about a settlement that was created because Trump is alleging $10 billion, I believe, damage because his tax returns were released by a federal contractor. And from that, you have not only this weaponization fund, but this essential protection from any sort of IRS claims against him or his family. And like you said, it was self-dealing from the start in that he is the plaintiff suing his own IRS at which point, you know, settlement was worked out.

So, I'm glad the judge in Virginia has put a halt on this, but it's hard to wrap your head around how completely bizarre this agreement was in the first place. COATES: And to add to that, I mean, you have to have an actual case or controversy. The issue in part was that there was no controversy between the IRS and the government and Trump. They were on the same page in some respects.

Ryan, even Trump's allies, they've urged them to scrap this fund. That's how unpopular it is. But the DOJ, they have defended it time and time again. So, what does that tell you about the department's leadership right now?

CROSWELL: Well, I think we've known this since back to the Eric Adams case. The leadership is filled with sycophants. And, you know, finally, Republicans in Congress are starting to stand up. You know, they went along with the big lie. They didn't convict him on the impeachment. They didn't stand up when he pardoned all the J6 rioters. And so, there's finally political backlash.

I think it puts Todd Blanche in an interesting position because, obviously, he's probably trying to get confirmed as the attorney general. And he's getting real backlash from even Republican senators, which is a good thing. But it speaks to how out of touch this administration, this DOJ, is with the American public, I think.

COATES: It is important. You know, they serve, if you're an appointee, at the pleasure of the president. It does not mean you serve only to please the president. That's the distinction, I think, you're making about being a sycophant.

You know, a lot of people questioned how this fund and settlement could even be legal. I mean, Congress, they weren't able to do anything. The courts were. So, do you think that the judiciary is appropriately doing its part right now or could this also be checked by the other coequal branch of government?

CROSWELL: I think the judiciary is doing its part. But I will note that I believe the statement from the administration was that we're not going to let a judge's policy preferences stop us, which is really scary, you know, because we're always worried about the administration just defying the courts.

Look, I think that the judiciary is looking closer and closer to DOJ's actions, and they need to because we've seen -- I mean, how many times have I now been on the show discussing different areas where they're taking obvious political actions? And it is a DOJ that just lacks independence despite the fact that even Republicans in the Senate are finally going back on it, pushing back against this.

COATES: You know, I want to talk about the Kennedy Center because another federal judge determined it was illegal for Trump to add his name to the Kennedy Center. And now, the president, I mean, if you read his wall of text, seems to be giving up on it. Are you surprised he would let this one go?

CROSWELL: I actually am. You know, I think the administration said at some point that this was legal because it was informal despite the fact his name is essentially carved into the building's facade. Look, I was surprised.

But, you know, I think that the scales are starting to drop in the American people's eyes of how little this president cares about them and in helping their problems. And, you know, ideally, the president would move on to helping fix some of the problems he promised he would during his campaign and not worry about his name being placed on walls. But names go up, names come down. I'm confident that history is going to sort this out and Donald Trump's name is going to come down for a lot of things in a few years.

COATES: Well, for now, the courts believe it got to come down from at least one building. Ryan Croswell, thanks for joining.

[23:09:55]

Breaking tonight, after three days of silence, the White House has just released a summary of President Trump's annual physical exam. Of course, Walter Reed Medical Center. That happened on Tuesday.

I want to bring in -- because I'm really curious about this -- CNN medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner. So good to see you. I have it in my hands. You know I was combing over it. I know I want to talk to you about this. So, Dr. Reiner, much has been made of the president's hand bruising, which is usually covered up by makeup. I want to just talk about a portion of this medical summary because it states that it is consistent with minor soft tissue irritation related to frequent handshaking. What's your take?

JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST, PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY AT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Right. Well, I suppose that can happen, particularly if you're on a higher dose of aspirin than we typically recommend --

COATES: Which they say.

REINER: - for patient for cardiovascular protection. But it doesn't explain why his left hand is also bruising, unless he's doing some left-handed shaking routinely and vigorously. So, that's never really wronged true. Perhaps, it's all just because of this higher dose of aspirin. But my question is, why are you taking a higher dose of aspirin than recommended?

What's interesting to me also is that the report mentions that the president underwent a coronary artery CT scan, which is a very useful test, except he had that in the fall. And it's not typically a test that is done every six months. It's sometimes done more frequently if someone is having symptoms.

We don't know if he's having any symptoms because the exam doesn't list what we call a review of symptoms where you -- review of systems where you go through system by system with the patient and ask them questions like, are you having headaches? Are you having any shortness of breath? Do you get chest pain, abdominal pain, et cetera? So, there's no description of a review of systems in this note.

But it does mention that, again, they scanned him. So, my question is, are they -- are they surveilling him for a concern? Are they doing serial CT scans of his heart because they have an ongoing concern? That's not listed in the note.

But the importance of this -- of this memorandum is really summarized in the last line, and this is why it's so important for the public to see this. And when there was some concern that they were just simply not going to release it, you know, what I mentioned earlier today was the last line of all these notes always say the same thing, which is that, you know, upon examination and evaluation of the patient, the president is deemed, you know, fit for service as commander-in-chief and head of state.

COATES: Right.

REINER: And that's crucial. The public knows that. This report would speak to that conclusion. There are other things that misses. There's no discussion of the patient's obvious excessive sleepiness during the day. That's, you know, I think, an important omission.

COATES: But one thing I want to ask you about -- and I will note part of what they say in that last line, is that his demanding daily schedule, including multiple high-level meetings, public engagements, and regular physical activity, continues to support his overall well- being and talks about his cognitive and physical performance.

But there are two points there, and one is that there was an A.I. evaluation of the president's cardiac health and it found he is actually 14 years younger. I want you to elaborate on what that means and how you determine that. But also, to your point about monitoring something, there's a section about extremities and musculoskeletal. Slight lower leg swelling was noted with improvement from last year. Does that suggest that there had been a monitoring and does that give you pause? And tell me about this 14-year younger president.

REINER: Well, first of all, if you look at Dr. Barbabella's note from April of last year, it notes no swelling in the legs. So, if he has swelling in his legs, then that's not an improvement from last year, that's a deterioration from last year. Perhaps it has improved from over the summer when the photos made the press. But last year, at this time, they documented that the president had no swelling in his legs.

COATES: So, how about this A.I. --

REINER: As for the --

COATES: -- A.I. of 14 years younger?

REINER: Yes, yes. So, they reported that last year as well. And when I discussed this with some of my colleagues in cardiology, everyone laughed. That's not a clinical -- that's not a clinical use tool. There was one paper on this technology. But that's not really a way to gauge cardiac health.

[23:15:01]

COATES: Well -- REINER: That's not a clinically accepted or relevant tool.

COATES: Well, his birthday is coming up.

REINER: It's flattering for him. It's flattering for the president.

COATES: You think, Dr. Reiner?

REINER: But it's not -- it's not a clinic we used to.

COATES: Well, thank you for your expertise. You would know. Dr. Jonathan Reiner, everyone. Thank you so much. Coming up next, Democrats say Pam Bondi threw the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, who's now acting A.G., under the bus over the Epstein files. So, what did she say and what does it mean for someone like him trying to become the attorney general? And later, the performers dropping out of Trump's "Freedom 250" concert and the political debate it has now sparked.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:19:56]

COATES: Former Attorney General Pam Bondi was back on the Hill today for the long-awaited closed doors questioning about the DOJ's handling of the Epstein files while she was in charge. Now, according to Democrats, Bondi repeatedly said her successor, the acting A.G., Todd Blanche, spearheaded the investigation. Well, tonight, Bondi fired back in all caps, not true, talking about how she praised him. We don't have to guess for long because Republicans say they will release the transcript of the interview in the coming days. Good, because I want to read it.

With me now, Attorney James Marsh represents survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, including Maria and Annie Farmer. James, good to see you. OK, look --

JAMES MARSH, ATTORNEY, REPRESENTS ACCUSERS OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN: Good to see you again. Another Friday night for us, Laura.

COATES: On another Friday night. And yet today, the question is about where the buck stops and with who. Do you believe it is with Bondi or Blanche?

MARSH: Well, from the very beginning, they promised something they couldn't deliver, they delivered something they couldn't control. And now, the victims and survivors are left in the wake. And we've seen this pattern repeat itself now for a year.

So, you can -- as everybody remembers, at the very beginning, even before the election, they were promising to release the files. That was their promise. That was a campaign, you know, that they ran on. And then we got the empty binders. And then we got this delayed release with victims' names, pictures, files everywhere, questions about completeness. It has been totally mishandled from the very beginning. And it's no surprise to me, at least, that the right hand is now blaming the left hand for what did or did not get accomplished with this whole mess.

COATES: I mean, one of the phrases, to your point, about the types of things that were allowed to be public, they acknowledge, she acknowledged that there -- quote -- "were redaction errors in the public release of the Epstein files." A really sterile response to compared to the significance of those unredacted names coming out. And some of them, hundreds of times.

MARSH: Absolutely. I mean, they missed their deadline to begin with. And they didn't even frame it in the context of, look, we are auditing every page, we're going through every file to make sure victims' names, identities, and images are not released. Who could fault them for that? In fact, that's what people would respect. That's what people would want from this process. That's a reason to miss the date. But, as I said before, they have just mishandled this completely.

And if you notice the narrative here, the victims are absent from the narrative, and that has been the problem from day one. Look, if the administration really took this seriously and wanted to flip the narrative, they could give that $1.8 billion fund to the Epstein victims. Once again, who would fault them for that?

But, in fact, we're back to square one where the left hand is blaming the right hand, caught up in a political process and a blame game, and the victims are really being left to fend for themselves.

COATES: You know, I had to tell you, as a prosecutor, I really have a problem with the idea that she didn't testify under oath. I mean, whoever heard of attorney general who knows full well the credibility assigned to under oath testimony.

MARSH: Absolutely.

COATES: In fact, the requirement if you have somebody coming in on behalf of the government to do so. I mean, would lawmakers have learned more if she had testified under oath? I should rephrase that. Could they trust more what they've learned if she had testified under oath and there was a consequence if she lied?

MARSH: You know, I -- that's a hard question to answer because I don't believe any of these people are telling the full truth. So, what we've seen is a duck in cover. Right? It's Todd Blanche's fault, I'm not going to answer questions about the president, I don't remember, I can't comment on that. So, under oath, not under oath, we've seen the power of Congress to sanction people that lied under oath or didn't tell the truth under oath.

I think they've got a closet somewhere. The only power they can have is sort of put these people in the closet for six months or rely on the Justice Department to execute the warrant. So, either way, whether she was under oath or not, I don't think it's going to make a huge difference. I think we get substantially the same answer. We may even have gotten less if she was under oath. Who knows? We haven't seen the transcript yet. So -- COATES: I can't wait to read it. James Marsh --

MARSH: Reading even on a Friday night.

COATES: I'll read it any day. Thank you so much.

MARSH: Thank you, Laura. Thanks for having me.

COATES: Next, musical acts ditching the Trump-backed concert to celebrate "America 250." One of them calling the event divisive. Is the country's anniversary now politicized? LZ Granderson, Mark McKinnon live, next. And later, the fury against A.I. data centers growing by the day in town after town. And now, those people have a brand-new ally. Welcome. Erin Brockovich will join me live tonight.

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It has been billed as the ultimate birthday party for America. But tonight, the Trump-backed "Freedom 250" concert series, well, it's unraveling only 48 hours after the lineup was even announced. From country stars to hip-hop legends, a wave of artists is bailing out, all who claimed that they were tricked into a partisan rally.

[23:30:02]

Let's discuss now with former adviser to President George W. Bush and the late Senator John McCain, Mark McKinnon. Also here, L.A. Times columnist and the host of "The LZ Granderson Show" podcast, LZ Granderson. Good to see both of you here. LZ, I want to begin with you because we're already seeing administration officials blame this on woke pressure, cancel culture. Really?

(LAUGHTER)

LZ GRANDERSON, OP-ED COLUMNIST FOR LOS ANGELES TIMES, PODCAST HOST, VISITING SCHOLAR AT WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY: Yes. You know, it's so unfortunate. I went back to take a look at how we celebrated 200. And, you know, the president at the time, Gerald Ford, got in to the White House on a very, you know, shaky circumstances. I don't need to relive all of history.

But it was so cool to think about how we celebrated 200, even facing all the terrible things that were going through as a nation. Elvis Pressley performed. The Eagles performed. Elton John performed. Some of the biggest names in music were on the stage helping us celebrate 200. And here we are now going, oh no, Vanilla Ice and Paul Wright (ph), only two left. I mean, what happened?

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: I mean, I -- that's a big question. Mark, I want you to pick it up because when Trump ran in 2024, I mean, a lot of ink was spilled about him having tapped into pop culture. Now, you see a lot of people who don't want to use his -- their songs in campaigns and beyond. He was annoyed about who was performing at inaugurations and beyond. And to LZ's point, a lot has changed in 50 years of who is now doing it. There were so many takes on MAGA being cool. But is this a boycott of the concert? Is it a sign that he is losing those vibes?

MARK MCKINNON, POLITICAL STRATEGIST, FORMER ADIVISER TO GEORGE W. BUSH AND JOHN MCCAIN: Well, let me provide some context. Republicans have never tapped into musical pop culture really. Not broadly, anyway. I used to be a songwriter in Nashville and not a very good one. That's why I got into politics.

But because I had a musical background, worked for Bush, McCain, and the other Republicans, I was the guy at the conventions that they put in charge of getting music. Now, here's what happened. You're in charge of the music, so everybody and everybody says, oh, we want the Rolling Stones, we want the Beyonce, we want Bono, and you can imagine the list of what they asked or for me to go get for Republican convention. And two months later, I come back and I say, I've got Wayne Newton, I've got The Oak Ridge Boys, and I've got Lee Greenwood, and that's it. In Republican circle, that's all you're going to get musically.

Now, Trump just doubled down on that and made it worse because it's just politicized. And it's really interesting to read these stories and the conflict between managers and agents and the musicians themselves because often, it's all -- you know, the deals are cut through the agents. And then it gets to musicians, and they're like, what the hell? They don't want to be politicized. All it does is divide their audience.

COATES: All right, stop, collaborate, and listen. Vanilla Ice is one of the acts who -- see what I did there? That was funny, fellas. It's Friday night. I just --

GRANDERSON: I'm so glad --

COATES: I mean, it was hilarious. Are you guys serious that you fell for it? Vanilla Ice is one of the acts. He's going to perform. You know what? Listen to him explain it.

(LAUGHTER)

VANILLA ICE, RAPPER: I'm here to party with America, man. Music is made to bring people together. If Biden called up and he said, my daughter is getting married, we need Vanilla Ice, I'll go play. It's not a big thing. I'll go play for Putin, and I'll play in Iran if you want. It doesn't matter. There are fans everywhere. Music is not political, man. It's universal. Just get out, shut up, and play. That's what I say.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: OK. Well, LZ, what do you say? Because, obviously, the name of people he would actually perform for would get him a lot of backlash. Is his point well taken or should it matter who it's for?

GRANDERSON: Listen, every artist is responsible for creating the art that they create for the purposes of their own delight. And who consumes it, they cannot control.

COATES: True.

GRANDERSON: Who you perform for, you can control. And so, you know, he's right in the sense that music can be embraced by everyone and that it knows no political bounds. But there are politics, and those politics do create boundaries. And he's kind of being flippant on the freedoms that people fought for and died for to help us secure so that we have the freedom to have the kind of music that we can say anything that we want.

I think it's really disrespectful, Laura, that he's being so flippant about this. If he wants to have a thoughtful conversation about art and the power of music to bring people together, sure, but you don't have to be an ass about it, especially in the week of Memorial Day. I mean, it's just -- I just think it's shameful.

COATES: Mark, I want to turn to the sports world for a second with you because New York Giants quarterback Jaxson Dart has gotten a lot of flak for introducing President Trump at a rally. Today, Dart said he did it because he respects the position, regardless of political affiliation. Then he had his teammate, Abdul Carter, who had called him out online. And today he said this.

[23:35:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABDUL CARTER, FOOTBALL LINEBACKER, NEW YORK GIANTS: Jaxson is one of our leaders. He's the face of our franchise. He not only represents himself and what he does, but he represents all of us. But if he chooses to align himself with a man like President Trump, it's my responsibility, based on what I believe and what I stand on, to not only show my teammates that I'm against that, but to show the world. And that doesn't mean that we have to spread hate. It doesn't mean that me and Jaxson hate each other or we have beef.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: How do you think he handled that?

MCKINNON: Well, I think that Dart -- I think this is an example of Dart being really young and really naive. I think his -- I think his intent was pretty straightforward, pretty pure. He just -- he's in America, he got called by the president and, you know, historically, you get called by the president to introduce him, you salute and say sure.

These are very different times. And I think that he's learning now that he's not just Jaxson Dart individual, he's the face of the New York Giants franchise. When you're the face of franchise, you have to consider the backlash, you have to consider that you're representing a point of view when you -- when you make an endorsement or an introduction like that.

I thought his teammate handled it really well, too, by being very straightforward but saying, listen, you know, we are not preaching hate, I got no hard feelings against Jaxson. I think the basic lesson is that -- I think what he's saying is, I hope Jaxson has learned from this, and I suspect he has.

COATES: LZ, I know you want to say something. You have the final word tonight.

GRANDERSON: You know, I don't know if Jaxson is naive or not. He went to Ole Miss. You know, they got a pretty good history. Even his former college coach talked about the racism of Ole Miss and how that made it difficult for him to recruit.

And so, you know, you think about this young man going up with this environment in Mississippi, and then you come to New York, and we're supposed to believe that you're not able to connect any dots between anything that you're witnessing around the world and think that this backlash came out of nowhere, you didn't think this was going to happen. I mean, I don't think he was that naive. I think he just didn't think it was going to call him out. I think that's the thing that shook him.

And I think his teammate handled it extremely well, especially saying, listen, you can have your beliefs and I can have my beliefs, and we can work together because we have a common goal. And thank God someone was an adult and was able to say that.

COATES: Mark, LZ, good to hear from you both. Breaking tonight, the rescue mission to pull the four remaining survivors from a flooded cave in Laos is about to get underway. A first survivor was safely guided out by a team of specialist cave divers yesterday. The villagers have been stuck down in the pitch black more than a week after flash floods trapped them more than 800 feet from the entrance.

CNN's Will Ripley is on the scene in Laos. Will, what can you tell us about where the rescue mission stands right now in Laos?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Laura. Yes, it's day 11 for those villagers who remained trapped some 850 feet deep inside that cave, breathing in rancid air.

And the rescue divers who've been flying in from all over the world, who are involved in this operation, have actually been meeting behind closed doors for the last hour and a half or so. And we're expecting, any minute now, they're going to walk out, they're going to get in that green bus right there, and they're going to drive about 30 minutes to the cave entrance where a group of Thai and Laotian workers and rescue divers have actually been camped out.

And they have been operating through the morning for the last several hours and actually through the overnight hours as well using generators that they hauled into this very remote, treacherous, rugged, and extremely isolated area. They've been trying to pump the water out of the cave as much as possible. Even though rain is in the forecast today, it was in the forecast yesterday, the rain has held off. You can see the sun is shining right now. And so, they're going to try, as long as the rain continues to hold off, to rescue as many of the other villagers as they can during the very limited time window that they have.

But I got to be honest with you, Laura. One of the rescue divers, Robin Cuesta who is based in Indonesia, he's from France, he was telling me this morning, frankly, he thinks it's a miracle that the first -- oh, they are coming out? There they are. Let me step out so you can see. That's Robin right there with the orange helmet. He said he thinks it's a miracle that one villager made it out yesterday because the dive that they have to actually undertake, 100 feet through pitch black, 22 degrees Celsius water. I mean, it feels icy. The possibility of somebody panicking in a situation like that is extremely high, even with two experienced divers in the front and the back.

And so, frankly, they're very concerned that some of these other villagers just don't have the ability physically to actually undertake that highly technical dive, not to mention the 800 plus foot climb at a 45-degree angle in some places to get out of the cave after that, given their medical condition after being underground for 11 days.

[23:40:10]

COATES: Oh, my God. Will Ripley, thank you so much. Oh, my goodness. Terrifying. Up next, her name synonymous with stopping corporations from bullying small towns and contaminating their communities. Now, Erin Brockovich is joining the fight against A.I. data centers, and she's live with me tonight to tell us all about it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: All right, when you hear the name Erin Brockovich, you probably immediately think of the Oscar-winning film starring Julia Roberts in profile of the case where Brockovich, a real person, helped win $333 million in 1996 for California residents who have been exposed to contaminated water, and it put her on the map.

[23:45:03]

But since then, she has continued to build a career, taking on corporate powers who threaten the health and safety of the little guy. And now, she's taking up an issue many Americans are increasingly concerned about, A.I. data centers, thousands of them all across the country. And a recent Gallup poll found that more than two-thirds of Americans don't want these things anywhere near their homes. So, now, she is raising awareness with her very own map. And the red dots you see are locations where community members have reached out to her with concerns.

Erin Brockovich joins me now. Erin, looking at that map, I mean, we know that you are no stranger to this kind of fight. But tell me what made you decide to get involved in the pushback against data centers specifically.

ERIN BROCKOVICH, AMERICAN PARALEGAL, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST, JOINS FIGHT AGAINST A.I. DATA CENTERS: So, it began with about 30 individuals from one community, in the morning, all at once, sending me information about data centers, how they felt, what was going on. Any time that happens to me, I tend to immediately go, ah, that's kind of odd. I'm a very curious person, and I could quickly see, doing some of my research and looking around at stuff, that this wasn't just one town.

So, I did a map because I'm very visual and it helps us see the bigger picture. I was shocked. When I launched the map, within 72 hours, we had thousands and thousands of submissions from 49 states. And I was like, oh my gosh, this is the whole country. That's how it began.

COATES: I mean, "The New York Times" -- we have that map on the screen right now, but "The New York Times" just did a profile on a Montana mother who was trying to stop a massive 5,000-acre -- I mean, talk about being visual -- 5,000-acre data center from being built in her small town. And she says the town council is not being transparent about the project and quote, "I think they count on us being dumb country people and us not pushing back. But by the time you figure out what these companies are planning to do, they've got the data centers built already."

So, what are people telling you about why they're so concerned about these data centers?

BROCKOVICH: Well, so, every story that comes in, I read each one personally, has a very consistent theme to what you were just talking about. So, we have almost categories of people that are coming and sharing their stories out of proposal state, which is exactly where they're like secrecy. NDAs are being signed. They didn't have a voice. And that's when a community will kind of start rallying around. Why did we not know about this? Why do I not have a say in this?

And then it moves to construction. And in the construction area, they're talking about watching -- and we have some incredible photos that we'll be putting up next week of the destruction. First of all, the size of these places is unbelievable. And watching all the trees be destroyed, they're worried about the land, they're worried about the wildlife, they're worrying about it being displaced.

And then we hear from people where the systems are already up and running, who have already come through the non-disclosure, the construction. And now, we're getting reports of what's actually happening to them. And there's nothing better than listening to the community members who are there living it and breathing it every day. And for the ones up and running, they said the noise and the decibel is almost enough to make you mad. We're starting to see some water images and very concerning situations regarding that and air.

So, we go from proposal all the way to running, and you are seeing a very similar thing from community to community to community, state by state.

COATES: I mean, Erin, I wonder, have these tech companies reached out to you to address the issues people are bringing up? I mean, so many of them might argue this is hyperbolic, this is a necessary evil to keep up pace with what the world demands in terms of information. What have you been finding out from the tech companies? BROCKOVICH: Well, you know, I just kind of read like everyone else does, what their position is. I haven't had any calls from them or talk to them. And listen, I think this community is -- what I've learned about communities, Laura, is they will always handle the truth. They will always work with you, but they'll never handle a lie. So, if any tech company contacts me, I'm going to like get right on out there and talk to those people.

You cannot dismiss. You know, an entire country just has better things to do in their life. And I've learned this in Hinckley and every other case I've worked on.

[23:49:59]

Then to make up these outlandish crazy lies, city council, NDA and secretive, they're experiencing this, they're watching it and observing it. So, I will always believe exactly what they're reporting to me. So, if any tech company or any city council for that matter who just blocked them out of the process cares to have the courage to go in and talk to the community, I think it would be very interesting.

You know, they have a lot of room here to work with these people. And that's what they want. You give them a buffer. You can't just ram something like this down their throat. And to see it at this level is shocking to me. This isn't a Hinckley in one state. This is in every state, in multiple counties and cities. It's stunning.

COATES: Your map is stunning. Erin Brockovich, thank you.

BROCKOVICH: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, on this Friday night, I got a recommendation for your next pod. It's smart, it's funny, it's Audie Cornish and Ari Shapiro doing their thing. Ari is here tonight to tell us all about it, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI SHAPIRO, PODCAST HOST: What do you think?

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN HOST AND CORRESPONDENT, PODCAST HOST: It's good.

SHAPIRO: Yes.

CORNISH: Yes.

SHAPIRO: Yes. It's a little bit like a more interesting blueberry, I think.

CORNISH: But a less interesting cranberry.

SHAPIRO: More interesting than a blueberry, less interesting than a cranberry.

CORNISH: Don't be coming at me, cranberry people, OK? I don't want to hear about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Before we go tonight, don't miss out on the CNN video podcast, "Engagement Party," where CNN anchor Audie Cornish and her longtime colleague and friend, singer Ari Shapiro, break down the latest buzz in all of pop culture. They talk everything from euphoria to protein max -- yes, that's a thing -- to why your favorite band may be priced out of putting on a show. Here's a little preview of the latest episode.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHAPIRO: Here's the other thing, and this is what I can say from my experience touring with the band Pink Martini, is that costs of touring have skyrocketed.

CORNISH: Yes.

SHAPIRO: And so, sometimes --

CORNISH: Don't say the cost. The bus, the fuel for the bus.

SHAPIRO: Right. Hotels. Everything is like doubling, tripling in cost, and the fees are not going up. And so, it might be that if you're playing a small to mid-sized venue, you are just not going to be able to turn a profit. And so -- unless you can fill the big venues.

CORNISH: Yes.

SHAPIRO: I've heard artists say that the middle class of music is disappearing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Ari Shapiro joins me now. Ari, I am so glad to have you.

SHAPIRO: Thanks for having me. Happy Friday.

COATES: Happy Friday. I mean, look, your show knows that hot takes can now be smart takes. And I'm just curious about -- I'd like to be in the room where it happens. You figured out how you're going to decide which topics. There are so many to choose from.

SHAPIRO: OK. Our feeds are full of stuff that we need to process with a friend and to have a smart friend who has some insightful ideas about things that everybody is talking about, whether it's why are we getting Doritos with protein in them or why are all these artists canceling their arena and stadium shows.

I like to think that this show has the vibe of back when Audie and I used to co-host "All Things Considered." We would talk about very serious things when our mics were open, war, politics, and then our mics would turn off, and the two of us would just like make each other cackle about whatever we were seeing on our screens.

And that's kind of the bread and butter of this show. We want to give people the feeling of being kind of behind the scenes with two friends who have known each other for more than 20 years, who can kind of finish each other's sentences sometimes.

COATES: I love it. It's amazing. And I love the fact that you two are also very hard-hitting journalists who give us the escapism we need in an area that kind of unites everyone. I mean, I talk to people all the time about things that are pop culture, and then I have to have a high brow conversation, and I'm like, you know what? Forget it. Let's talk about that instead.

SHAPIRO: But my other hope is that even if you don't, for example, watch "Euphoria" on HBO, you get something out of the conversation about, you know, their plots about "OnlyFans" and the economy --

COATES: Yes.

SHAPIRO: -- of being something. I'm like, why are people watching this? Are they hate watching it? What should I know about it? It comes out on Fridays. You can over the weekend have a dinner party conversation where you can sound like you know what you're talking about even if you haven't seen the show. That kind of thing.

COATES: I mean, the discourse around what we're watching in this sort of cultural moments is really we're seeing ourselves on the screen and what we care about or what we ought to think about. That's really what you're talking about.

SHAPIRO: Yes. And that's why I think, in some ways, it's an artificial distinction between sort of high and low culture or hard and soft news. I mean, for example, when we talk about protein maxing, there are things to talk about involving GLP ones, that more than one in 10 Americans are on right now, the MAHA movement that is putting protein at the top of the food pyramid. Like these are maybe hard news things that connect to something you might see on TikTok. And the nice thing about being able to work it all out with Audie is that we're both comfortable moving from one to the other.

COATES: Tell me about the touch grass part of your podcast.

SHAPIRO: Yes. This is one of my favorite parts of the show. It was Audie's idea. And the concept is that if we're spending all this time talking about what's on our screens, let's take a moment each episode to get off our screens, talk about something in the real world.

And so, in our last episode, I actually brought physically something for Audie from the real world, which is these serviceberries, which is like a wild berry that grows on a tree. All over Washington, D.C., they are ripe right now. And so, I went to a serviceberry tree that was like a block from my house. I picked a bunch of berries. I brought them in for her to try.

COATES: Just walking around picking berries.

SHAPIRO: Yes, just picking berries in the neighborhood.

COATES: And she trusts you enough to go ahead and eat them?

SHAPIRO: That's how you know we're real friends.

COATES: Because Audie is a skeptical one.

SHAPIRO: Oh, yes.

COATES: She's probably like, if I brought her a bucket of berries, she'd be like --

SHAPIRO: Absolutely not.

COATES: But Ari Shapiro brings these berries, OK?

SHAPIRO: Part of the reason we work well together is that I can be a little bit more of like the wide-eyed puppy dog and she can be a -- I'm the dog of the relationship, she's the cat of the relationship. Let's put it that way. You know?

COATES: That's very, very telling. Well, tell me, what's up in the next episodes?

[00:00:00]

SHAPIRO: We have been talking a lot about "Summer House." Do you this show?

COATES: Yes. I'm sorry. No, I don't know anything about Sarah.

SHAPIRO: So, like this show is a Bravo reality show that has had this story that has broken out of the algorithm --

COATES: Yes.

SHAPIRO: -- and like broken out of the reality T.V. bubble. What is it about? What has been going on that has everybody, whether they watch reality or not talking -- we're going to get into it.

COATES: Well, we choose sides as a society.

SHAPIRO: I also think it is an archetypal story. It's "Midsummer Night's Dream" on reality T.V.

COATES: Oh, bring in Puck. Where is he? Ari Shapiro, thank you so much. Congratulations to you --

SHAPIRO: Thanks a lot, Laura.

COATES: -- and Audie. "Engagement Party" is available to stream on CNN's platforms and wherever you get your podcast. Well, you know what? That's it for me. Have a great weekend. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" starts right now.