Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Pentagon Seeks Billions More To Fund War With Iran; Andy Biggs Wins Arizona GOP Primary; New Jersey Sparks Firestorm Over Noncitizen Voter Roll Error; Dramatic Shift In Data Center Opposition. Aired 11p- 12a ET
Aired July 21, 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)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the Pentagon running out of money for the war in Iran as lawmakers run out of patience. What it means for the now $67 billion request to fund the fight. Plus, breaking news out of Arizona. Results coming in from several key primary races that could complicate the November picture for both parties. And the data center blowback is spreading much faster than you think. Our lawmakers underestimating just how angry voters are. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening statement tonight, you can't buy your way out of a war without an endgame because what Secretary Pete Hegseth is offering sounds less like a plan and more like a request for a sixty-seven billion-dollar-check with -- trust us, written on the memo line.
The defense secretary and the joint chiefs chairman spent hours before the Senate today, facing questions about the cost, strategy, and endgame of the war with Iran. And they put some hard numbers on the table. We got not one, but two eye-watering price tags. The first was $37.5 billion. That's what the war has already cost. And that second price tag, $67 billion, $67 billion, that's what Hegseth wants Congress to fork over to keep the war effort going. And the problem is a request like that doesn't require trust or a track record or proof that when you say something is true, it actually is.
And throughout this entire conflict, what Pete Hegseth and the president have told us has veered far from what's actually happening. He was taking a victory lap, if you recall, back in April, claiming Iran's military was destroyed. So, today, he was asked a simple question: What happens if America ends the blockade against Iran in the Strait of Hormuz? Well, compare then to now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Epic Fury decimated Iran's military and rendered it combat ineffective for years to come. Iran's navy is at the bottom of the sea.
They would try to impose their will on the waterways in ways that the world would not like. SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R), LOUISIANA: Will they toll it?
HEGSETH: Call it a toll, call it a fee, call it an exchange, call it control. They would do something that they would try to hold it at issue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Then you've got shrinking American munitions stockpiles. Last month, Hegseth was dismissing concerns that it was even an issue. Today, it was a reason the military needs an urgent cash infusion.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARGARET BRENNAN, CBS NEWS CHIEF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: There is a crisis with the stockpiles right now in private industry.
HEGSETH: No, there is not.
BRENNAN: You have testified to it in front of Congress.
HEGSETH: That is a manufactured story that the media wants to peddle. And ultimately, we are -- our stockpiles are great, and they'll only get stronger.
We face critical shortfalls that threaten our ability to also simply pay our service members, rapidly replenish equipment and munitions, and sustain vital operations without disruption.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But there is one question where Hegseth never seems to waver, and it's this one: Who is to blame for all of these?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: The disaster of what the Biden administration budgets gave us. It was not a priority to fund the Department of Defense under Joe Biden. It neglected the Biden administration. I mean, the Biden administration ignored hypersonics. I don't know what Lloyd Austin did for four years. Again, that goes back to the Biden administration of divest to invest.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Three names, titles missing, over and over. But not the one currently in the Oval Office who decided to engage in this war, which leaves the most important question of all: What exactly was the plan to actually end the war?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. GARY PETERS (D), MICHIGAN: You don't have a long-term plan to actually win this war. Win the war! The men and women are going to be able to do it, but they need to have leadership.
HEGSETH: Of course, we have leadership.
PETERS: When will you show leadership?
HEGSETH: Why don't you show some leadership and stand up for your fellow Democrats who won't fund the troops, who stand and play partisan politics while you don't give us the money? You want to stand up here and talk about the troops? You won't show any political courage to actually fund our department because you have Trump derangement syndrome and can't actually commit to anything meaningful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You can go ahead and rewind that and get the (INAUDIBLE). But the question about the plan, you know it was never answered, right? But Americans, they're still being asked to pay for the war nonetheless.
[23:04:58]
It's like -- it's like hiring someone who swears the job is done and then hands you a bill for the work so far, asks for a massive advance to keep going, and still can't tell you when the crew will leave or what done actually looks like.
I want to dive right in tonight with lead global security analyst for "The Washington Post," Josh Rogin, and CNN military analyst, retired U.S. Air Force colonel, Cedric Leighton. Glad to have both of you here.
I mean, first of all, Josh, Hegseth, he made the case for what $67 billion actually would buy. But did he make the case for what it not only would buy, but what it actually would achieve in advancing whatever goals they are now saying they have, and how does the U.S. get closer to the goal being the war is over?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST FOR THE WASHINGTON POST, AUTHOR: No. I mean, essentially, the number that the secretary of defense gave, $37 billion, is very, very much an underestimate of what the actual costs have been so far and what they will be in the long term. It doesn't account for the rebuilding of 13 American bases in the Middle East that were bombed to smithereens. It doesn't account for the care of hundreds of U.S. service members wounded and the family of 18 U.S. service members killed. It doesn't account for the opportunity cost of what it costs the United States to enter into a war of choice that is not supported by allies and will distract us from other urgent challenges around the world.
And the bottom line is that what he said was not true. American stockpiles are depleted. From the data that we have, Patriot missiles, Tomahawk missiles, SM-3 missiles, just for example, we've used a decade's worth of production in the first four weeks, not even up until now, and those will take at least five or six years to replace in our arsenal.
So, our military is in a bad spot, but that doesn't mean that Congress has to issue them a blank check or pay for a continued operation. The founders deliberately decided to put the war-making power in the hands of the legislature for a very good reason, because the history of all governments has shown that the executive is always the branch most interested and most prone to war. That's James Madison.
COATES: Well, colonel, President Trump, he has set his sights on a new goal. Listen to this. A new target.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We follow the material. That's where the action is. And we'll be hitting that area very -- probably pretty soon. And there's not a thing they can do about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: OK. So, do we actually know anything enough about Pickaxe Mountain to want to guarantee this strike would actually succeed? And why is this the new target?
CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL: Yes. So, those are great questions, Laura. So, Pickax Mountain is an area just south of Natanz. It is about basically a mile south of another nuclear facility. And it is buried underneath not only a ton of concrete, but it's also buried under a sheet of granite. So, you've got some really, really hardened geologic formations that you'd have to go through if you were to hit it directly.
So, the types of weapons that we would use would be something like the GBU-57. The GBU-57 is the bomb that was used back in June of last year by the B-2. So, we dumped 14 bombs. We struck Iran with 14 GBU-57s. First time that weapon has been used in combat. It was effective in closing off some of the sites, some of the entrance areas to those sites. There's no question about that.
The question with Pickaxe Mountain is, that it is so deeply buried. The tunnels are about 145 meters, so we're well over 300 feet, almost 400 feet beneath the ground. And in many ways, the weapon systems that we have may not be able to penetrate that particular installation. So, that becomes a critical element.
COATES: All right. Gentlemen, stand by. We have some breaking news out of Arizona. CNN can now project that Congressman Andy Biggs will win the Republican primary for governor. Biggs had the backing of the president, and he will now seek to flip the status. He goes up against Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs in November.
CNN's Steve Contorno is at the Biggs campaign headquarters in Scottsdale. Steve, Biggs has been touting his support of President Trump, but he also highlighted his bipartisanship and even his connection to late Senator John McCain. How did he thread this needle between MAGA and more mainstream Republicans?
STEVE CONTORNO, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Laura, it's more of a question in his style than substance. If you listen to Representative Andy Biggs' talk, no one will confuse him for Kari Lake, the MAGA warrior who has represented this party in races for Senate and governor over the last couple election cycles. He's using that to his advantage in talking about the times he has worked with members of the other party and members of his own party that have fallen out of favor with the MAGA base.
[23:10:00]
However, he still has a central challenge, and that is his own voting record. He is someone who is a member of the House Freedom Caucus. He has a very conservative track record, both as a leader of the state Senate in Arizona and as well as in the House of Representatives. Kari Lake was outspoken and a firebrand, but she didn't have much of a record for Democrats to attack. They mostly attacked the statement she was making. Andy Biggs has a long record for Democrats to attack, and they're already doing so. They're going after his attempts to block Medicaid expansion in Arizona, his views on abortion, and his efforts alongside Donald Trump to try to overturn the election results in Arizona.
So that is something he is going to have to spend the next 100-plus days, trying to convince voters that he is more, you know, that he could be palatable to some of these voters who have rejected MAGA candidates over the last few cycles. His opponent in this race, Representative David Schweikert, says he won't be able to do that, that he has an electability problem. However, the voters of Arizona, the Republican voters at least, have chosen their man, and it's Andy Biggs.
COATES: You know, it's interesting you mentioned the certification because he was an election denier, maybe is. He voted against certifying the 2020 election. And I do wonder how will that factor into the general election race once you've got the Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, who, as you know, in her prior role was somebody who was quite the electoral foe of those who were denying elections, particularly in Arizona, given her position.
CONTORNO: Yes. I think the history of this issue in Arizona will make this a topic that will continue to come up. I actually asked Andy Biggs about this on Friday, and he said, look, I'm looking forward, I think we will have a great election, but Donald Trump is still talking about this issue. He is potentially going to be running on a ballot that includes a secretary of state candidate who has also been pushing the same sort of election conspiracies. That's one of the races we'll be watching later tonight as well.
And Katie Hobbs, the governor, has already been talking about this issue as well. Take a listen to what she had to say earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. KATIE HOBBS (D-AZ): Andy Biggs has spent years undermining confidence in our elections. He still denies the outcome of the 2020 election and refused to certify Arizona's electors. And he still won't admit who won the 2022 governor's race. I'll save him the trouble. I did.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CONTORNO: So, that's a little taste of what you can expect in the coming months here. Katie Hobbs has her own work cut out for her. She only won this race by 0.7 percent margin four years ago. She's considered one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country and possibly the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent governor. And she has a lot of work to do. She took a lot of heat in her first campaign for the way she sorts of ducked and dodged the media. She wouldn't debate Kari Lake. I had a chance to ask her yesterday if she intends to debate Andy Biggs, if he is the nominee, and she would not commit to it. So, that is another thing we'll be closely watching in the weeks and months ahead in a race that we expect to be very, very tight.
This is a Republican state. Republicans have 300,000 more registered voters than Democrats. It's a state Donald Trump won by several percentage points. It was his biggest win out of all the battleground states. But Republicans have dropped the ball here repeatedly in these statewide contests where Donald Trump is not the candidate partially because of the candidates they nominated. And now, they've gone with a similar one in Andy Biggs.
COATES: Steve Contorno, thank you. We'll check back in with you on the other races we're watching a little later as well.
An issue sure to be on the minds of voters this coming November I want to talk with Josh Rogan and Colonel Leighton about, and that's Iran, because this is going to keep coming back and back. Looking ahead, forget 2020, forget 2024, 2026 tells us there is a war going on, and many voters are looking at this. And Josh, Speaker Johnson says that it is time to wrap up this war, but the president has been very clear that he is operating on his own schedule. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you believe that Iran is trying to impact the midterm election by threatening the Strait of Hormuz?
TRUMP: They won't have any impact on me. I'm just going to do the right thing. I don't view it as, gee, we're having an election in a period of time. Everyone says, oh, I'm doing something before. No. The election, I can't think about that having to do with this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do you think he really is almost dismissive, he thinks maybe strategically, about the political blowback here or is that just bluster?
ROGIN: I think he's stuck. The president knows that he has no clear path out of this war that he started. He understands intellectually that this is terrible for his party, but he's not willing to do what's necessary to help the party and help the country by getting us out of this thing as quickly as possible, in the most dignified way as possible.
[23:15:00]
And I believe him. He said he doesn't care. I believe him. He doesn't care about the midterms. He doesn't care about the Republican Party. Let's take the president at his word. Terrible for the Republicans, but not going to really affect Trump that much. He's not running.
Johnson, he's got a different problem. He's going to lose his majority. He's going to lose his speakership, potentially, because gas prices are too high and because Americans are suffering and inflation is out of control and people are dissatisfied with our foreign policy.
And all of those things are under Trump's control, but he refuses to lift a finger to help his party out. Whether or not that's in his self-interest or he's just too stubborn to admit that he's wrong, I guess it really doesn't matter at the end of the day.
COATES: We know that there has been a loss of life. There have been multiple losses of life. And it's so tragic to think about what those families are going through. And even hearing today Secretary Hegseth, colonel, he confirmed that China, that Russia were helping Iran as well and helping it more broadly. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: But there are ways in which both of those countries are limiting -- at different levels, enabling some of the things Iran is doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What kind of intelligence do you think Russia or China could be handing over to Iran or helping them substantively with?
LEIGHTON: Yes. So, I think the preeminent form of intelligence is targeting intelligence that they're providing the Iranians. Both China and Russia are probably doing this. We know that there's a collusion of sorts going on between the Iranians and the Russians when it comes to the drones. The Shahed-136 is, in essence, now a co-production between Iran and the Russians. The Russians, of course, use that drone against Ukraine and, of course, the Iranians have used it against us in the Middle East.
One of the key things to think about, Laura, is that there has been a lot of damage that has been underreported to U.S. bases in the Middle East. Josh, you alluded to it earlier. You know, look at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. We lost an AWACS plane at Prince Sultan Air Base. We lost tanker aircraft. We lost drones, Reaper drones.
So, these are critical elements right here. Of course, there's the tragic loss of life because our air defenses and missile defenses were not at the speed that they needed to be and they weren't at the accuracy that they needed to be in order to thwart those kinds of attacks from Iran. The other thing is, keep in mind, how accurate the Iranians have been.
The reason they've been so accurate is because they've been using GPS- like coordinates from the Russians and from the Chinese, and that's what has made the difference in this war right now.
COATES: Colonel Leighton, thank you. Josh, please stand by. Remember, you are all a part of this show, and I want to hear from you. So, text your questions, your comments, 818-972-7272. We're going to answer them later in the hour. Give me your first name and your city or state. Up next, how a New Jersey mistake is now pouring gasoline on the Republican push for stricter and newer voting rules.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: A mistake at the DMV in New Jersey is thrusting voter I.D. back into the spotlight. Democratic Governor Mikie Sherrill says a software glitch added about 6,600 noncitizens to the state's voter rolls between 2023 and 2024, and about 400 of them voted in recent elections. Some registered as Democrats, others Republicans, but most were unaffiliated. Sherrill says those names are now being removed, but Republicans say it is proof that the federal government needs to scrutinize voter rolls. Sherrill calls that nonsense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. MIKIE SHERRILL (D), NEW JERSEY: Let me be clear. Donald Trump has zero credibility on the issue of election integrity. For the past 10 years, he has cried wolf and peddled bizarre conspiracy theories about fraud with no evidence. The difference between my administration and this White House is stark. We don't deflect, deny or exploit problems for our own gain. We find them, and we fix them, because that's what a good, accountable government should do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Josh Rogin is back with me. Also here, Kurt Bardella, publisher of "The Watchdog Report" on Substack, and Carine Hajjar, editorial board member at "The Washington Post." Glad to have you guys here.
I mean, Kurt, this is the kind of news I'm sure Republicans who support the Save America Act are thrilled to see. They can look at this as proof. The Democrats are going to say this is a bit of an anomaly and it was corrected. But how do Democrats support this as an honest mistake and have credibility?
KURT BARDELLA, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR REPUBLICANS AT HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. PUBLISHER ON SUBSTACK: Well, the governor has done exactly what we want people to do in public office. You identified a problem, you were transparent about it, you've corrected it. What more could we possibly -- we hear all the time, people want more accountability in politics. They want more transparency from their leaders. That has what happened here.
And to this day, no Republican can come forward and tell me what race, what governorship, House, Senate, what outcome was affected by illegal voting in America. There isn't one example of any outcome ever being affected. So, I don't know what they're talking about, that we need to write federal laws now and re-change how we do elections in America because there was an honest mistake that was identified, corrected, and shared with the American people.
COATES: I mean, Secretary Markwayne Mullin had warned New Jersey and three other states, as you know, just last week, about potentially thousands of non-citizens on their voter rolls. This problem in New Jersey, they're going to say, was not going to be found out. But for him saying that, I wonder about that.
[23:24:58]
But, Carine, the White House said in a statement -- quote -- "As President Trump has said, there is nothing more important than the integrity of our elections. And this latest incident underscores the absolute necessity of the Save America Act."
Republicans, though, say the act is not going to pass in Congress. So, why keep up a futile fight if, as Kurt is talking about, the issue was not whether there had ever been people on the rolls or ever been somebody who had engaged in voting when they should not have, but that it did not change an outcome of an election?
CARINE HAJJAR, EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER, WASHINGTON POST: Look, I think this is a fixation for the president, and maybe the White House is misconstruing polling. He is -- with the Save America Act, it would be about not only voter I.D. but also proof of citizenship. And look, voter I.D. is actually a really popular issue. And I think it makes a lot of sense for states if they want to pass voter I.D. I think it would increase trust in elections. And so, it's good to see state leaders being transparent about what's going on, especially when mistakes are made.
But the president, I think, is making a mistake by taking one instance and assuming that this is going to be the fire that the Save America Act needs. And if anything, the Save America Act is actually complicating his efforts to pass other -- efforts in -- efforts to pass other, whether that be defense spending issues in the Senate. So, I think it's becoming sort of an albatross for Republicans.
COATES: Well, you know, the operative word, states, because they're the ones who run their elections.
HAJJAR: Right.
COATES: If states want to do so, states have the option to do so. The president, Josh, he took a pretty strikingly different tone today when talking about the allegations that he made just last week, that China tried to influence our elections. Listen,
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mr. President, are you planning on putting any pressure or consequences on China for what you announced about them meddling in the 2020 election?
TRUMP: Well, we'll talk to them about it. It took place a long time ago. I think China is maybe a little bit different today than it was then. But look, they do things, and we do things to them. I'll be honest. We do things to them, too. It's not a one-way street. But we'll be talking to them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What? What? What?
(LAUGHTER)
ROGIN: Yes. I mean, in classic form, Trump undermined his already tenuous credibility on this issue by laundering some old intelligence that did not actually support his accusation that China was interfering in the 2020 election.
Now, what's crazy about that is that China actually did interfere in the 2020 election in favor of Trump, as documented by me at the time in my book. Check it out. But that's neither here nor there. He managed to find the one thing China is actually not guilty of and accuse them of that, which is really hard to do in the U.S.-China game.
And so, you know, Trump can pound the table about election integrity, but when he's using primetime addresses to launder tenuous information that undermines his own credibility, it just hurts his argument, and I don't think 400 votes out of seven million in New Jersey is going to move the needle on this one way or the other at the end of the day.
BARDELLA: Yes. And this is why. The reason why we have an election integrity issue in America is because one of the two major political parties in America has made the conscious decision to go, you know what? I don't like the result. I don't like that we lost. We're going to invent a reason why and manufacture a problem that isn't a problem, and then spend the next six years talking about it ad nauseam.
So, that's why some people in this country are questioning whether we have election integrity issues, but the real data tells us we don't have an election integrity issue in this. The 2020 election is the most litigated election in American history. There were recounts. There were 60 lawsuits. Donald Trump lost every single one of them coast to coast in Georgia. You name it. He lost them. We don't have election integrity. We have a problem with one political party lying to the American people day in and day out about it.
COATES: Somehow, Olive Garden has come into this conversation. You think I'm crazy, but Olive Garden is part of this now. Republicans are singling out Olive Garden as part of their push for what we talked about, voter I.D. They pointed to this post from Olive Garden about the never-ending pasta pass. I can't make this up, people. OK? The restaurant says -- quote -- "Passholders must present a valid photo I.D. along with the pass at the time of ordering." Obviously, this is catnip for Capitol Hill because -- first of all, those bread sticks and salad are delicious.
(LAUGHTER)
I'm just putting it out there. But the Republicans have a point in terms of voter I.D. as a popularity issue. If others are pointing out a need for photo I.D., is this the right argument that they should be making now?
HAJJAR: I mean, if you need a -- look, if you need a voter I.D. for anything from bread sticks to participating in different sports leagues to all types of -- I mean, everyone has to pull out their I.D. for all types of activities in day-to-day life. I think it's fair.
You know, one of the privileges of being a citizen in this country is getting to vote. And so, I think it is perfectly fair to bring up wanting voter I.D. in elections. It's not just about, to your point, elections being secure, which we know broadly that they are, there are obviously anomalies, but it is people feeling that they're secure. And I think that voter I.D. is a way to do that and also undercut some of the president's more bombastic rhetoric about it if states take that on themselves.
[23:30:03]
COATES: Lest you think I have pulled this out of nowhere, listen to what happened to Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA), MAJORITY LEADER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Nowadays, if you want to go to Olive Garden and get unlimited pasta, you got to show a picture I.D. This isn't complicated stuff.
UNKNOWN: It's so ridiculous that we have the Olive Garden require I.D. for the all-you-can-eat pasta bowl, but we allow people to vote without showing who they are.
REP. BRYAN STEIL (R), WISCONSIN: Madam Chair, we're protecting our breadsticks more than our ballots in jurisdictions across this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAJJAR: But do you need citizenship to eat breadsticks?
ROGIN: Right.
HAJJAR: That's the question.
COATES: I just want to know what triggered that. Who went to (INAUDIBLE) pasta bar so many times and messed it up for everyone? But go ahead. ROGIN: I mean, the analogy is so ridiculous because it forces you to ignore the fact that the SAVE Act also has a number of provisions that would make registering to vote much more difficult, which would disproportionately hurt rural voters, poor voters, voters of color, and --
COATES: Women who did not change their names.
ROGIN: -- people who are dissident. Right.
COATES: Who did not change their names in marriage.
ROGIN: Women. So, you know, they can point to the breadsticks. But if you really want to talk about the rights of Americans to have a voice in our democracy, then the SAVE Act is about much more than that. And, you know, I think anyone should be able to eat at Olive Garden --
(LAUGHTER)
-- I.D. or not. That's my stance, and I'm sticking to it.
(LAUGHTER)
Come at me.
BARDELLA: When you're here, you're family.
ROGIN: Yes.
COATES: Ah, man.
ROGIN: Hospitaliano.
COATES: All right. Hold on a second. We've got some more projections out of Arizona. Alexander Kolodin has won the Republican primary for Arizona secretary of state. Now, this is notable because he is one of the people who tried to overturn the 2020 election in the state. OK, look, this is 58 percent of the vote. What's your reaction, the fact that he's the only one?
BARDELLA: They're really concerned about voter integrity, election fraud, and results when they elect an election denier to preside over elections going forward. I mean, this is the thing. Republicans, everything that they have done since 2020, every law that they have passed, every initiative they have spearheaded, election integrity units, it's all designed to restrict the amount of voting and participation in this country.
Donald Trump has gotten to the point where he has convinced the Republican Party that voting by mail is suspect, which is -- by the way, I'm old enough to remember as a former Republican when that's the reason why we won elections, was because we had such an advantage in the get-out-the-vote with mail-in voting. Who needs those people? Old people, rural voters. You know who a lot of those people are? Republicans. They're literally agreeing themselves.
ROGIN: And the military.
HAJJAR: Can we talk about how funny it is that Donald Trump seems -- I mean, he's struggling in a lot of areas right now, he has low approval, but he thinks that the answer is to remind us about 2020. There are a lot of reasons that people are not nostalgic for that moment in time.
(LAUGHTER)
So, you know, if the president wants an issue, I don't think that this is the one.
BARDELLA: I just want to point out that every single time that a Democrat has brought up January 6th, since January 6th, the Republican response has been, you need to move on, the country is ready to move on, why are you still talking about that? Yet here's the president using primetime on broadcasting cable news to talk about what? The 2020 election.
COATES: Josh, thank you. Carine, Kurt, stand by.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D), NEW YORK: Ask Peter Thiel, ask Elon Musk, ask Mark Zuckerberg if they want one of these data centers in their own backyard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: It's the issue that's now becoming a major political problem. Add it to the list. It's also a fast-growing problem. Tonight, the new evidence to suggest both parties may not be taking this seriously enough, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OCASIO-CORTEZ: About how the land use is happening in their own backyard because I would -- I would reckon -- you look around. Ask Peter Thiel, ask Elon Musk, ask Mark Zuckerberg if they want one of these data centers in their own backyard. Ask any one of us here on this committee. If anyone wants to live right next to one of these data centers here on this committee, please raise your hand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That was AOC today slamming proponents of A.I. data centers on Capitol Hill and the opposition to data centers. What has really taken off in the last few months? I mean, just look at this new poll from Politico. Back in January, only 28 percent of people said they oppose a data center being built near their home. Fast forward just six months and that same poll found the number has jumped to 41 percent. Now, on the flip side, just 24 percent now say they support having one where they live.
And the numbers, they aren't all that surprising. We've been seeing protests in communities all across the country, concerned over the harms to the environment, the rising energy bills, the lack of transparency, the sound, and they are begging leaders to do something about it.
My next guest did a whole report on the way that data centers are impacting a small community. CNN political analyst and editorial director at Vox, Astead Herndon, joins me now. Astead, good to see you. I mean, this is a pretty sharp swing in public opinion in just six months. Do you think that both parties are underestimating how quickly and how fiercely the backlash has been growing?
ASTEAD HERNDON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, HOST AND EDITORIAL DIRECTOR AT VOX: Yes, I think there's a lot of evidence that they are. This has been something that has been really consistent as we have gone around the country in the post-2024 swing. And it comes up when you hear folks from both parties. You mentioned the political poll that just came out. There was another one from Gallup that said that 7 out of 10 Americans do not want to have a data center near them.
[23:39:58]
It also said that 48 percent of Americans were strongly opposed to data center. I think that really speaks to the intensity of this issue. We see it really rising on the list of people's priorities over and over.
But when we were out in New Jersey talking to a community that was kind of in its moment of backlash against it, it was about more than just the structure itself or even fears about potential costs. It was also about the process. People felt like they weren't included in the conversation. And so that the data center felt like a physical embodiment of a political process that had frankly left them behind, and that was driving that intensity.
COATES: You know, you've actually spoken, as you mentioned, to residents in New Jersey who were impacted by data center construction. I want to play a moment from this town hall where you asked about their concerns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HERNDON: How many of you right now feel like you got information about the data center before the construction started? No. Nobody. OK. Can someone raise their hand and just tell me what their biggest concern was once they started hearing about it?
UNKNOWN: Well, when I saw it, I thought it was the ugliest thing I've ever seen.
HERNDON: How many of you would say that your concerns about this data center are tied to larger concerns about A.I. and kind of some anxiety around that?
UNKNOWN: The internet taught us the best of the world and the worst of the world. OK? A.I. is going to do the same thing. It has already begun.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, Astead, when you visit these communities, are people, are they more concerned with the environmental impacts or fears that these data centers are fueling things like job losses or just general anxiety around A.I.?
HERNDON: I think it's a little bit of all of the above. But I really think it's the speed of change that's really important here. The anxiety, particularly around potential job loss, has been driven by uncertainty that folks don't know what's coming. I think these A.I. companies don't themselves know what's coming. But more importantly, they feel the absence of proactive legislation, the absence of elected officials who are talking about this issue, too.
And so I think that it's something where I mentioned kind of the process is felt like it's left behind, but it's also one where I feel like the gerontocracy, our older members of government, becomes that gap between them and the electorate becomes really stark because people feel as if their elected officials don't have a real handle on where the work economy is going and, therefore, cannot kind of legislate with them in mind. So, I think those things are really connected.
But I've got to say, it's also about the ugliness of the structure itself. I mean, you're talking about hundreds of acres of land that have really upended property values, and there are concerns around water usage, electricity prices. And so, I just don't think the benefit has been clear to the communities, whether it is in jobs or even in potential benefits from A.I.
And so, folks are using ChatGPT, they're using these kinds of tools, but they're not seeing it being reinvested as something that is helping their community. They're only seeing that data center as, I think, a physical proof of it extracting from their community.
COATES: Why do you think this has not been an issue given how unpopular and confusing, frankly, it has been for some people as to the necessity or the nuisance of it?
HERNDON: Yes.
COATES: Why has this not been an area ripe for bipartisan discussions?
HERNDON: Well, the short answer is you've seen kind of A.I. companies target folks in the midterms who are pushing things like A.I. regulation. Even in the New York 12 district where Micah Lasher was successful running in that district, you have a kind of A.I. companies specifically try to make sure that they really influenced that result. And so, you've had kind of a Democratic elected official, I think, in particular, be kind of swapped down when they come up -- when they pop their heads up on this issue.
But on the progressive side, you're having more and more people call for things like data center moratoriums but, at the same time, that has its own drawbacks. I was just talking to someone who was against the moratorium because, this is Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, he says he feels that that could put us behind on the A.I. race and have jobs that go to China and elsewhere.
And so, there's a lot of kind of, I think, lot of ways people can go on this issue but, at the same time, I think it's the fact that that conversation is being led by the outside and not our government that is driving that anxiety, right? If we're leaving it to Anthropic, if we're leaving it to the business and philanthropy communities to have the discussions about A.I. regulations, I think for a lot of voters, that feels like they'll be left behind.
COATES: So compelling. Great reporting. Astead, thank you so much.
HERNDON: Thank you.
COATES: I have an update on the Nolan Wells investigation. Tomorrow is going to be a big day because we're expecting to get the results of the independent autopsy. Attorney Benjamin Crump told us he's going to hold a news conference to go through it.
[23:45:00]
It will be the first time we will get any real information on how Wells may have died. The 18-year-old's body was found two days after a July 4th boating trip with his friends off the coast of Mississippi, and the family has been demanding answers ever since. We'll, of course, have that update for you tomorrow night, of course, here on "Laura Coates Live."
Up next, it's your turn to drive the conversation. Text us your questions and your comments at 818-972-7272. Kurt and Carine are back with me live to answer them next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: We've been getting lots of questions from you guys tonight, so let's start answering them, OK? And a reminder, if you want to join in, text me your questions, of course, and comments, 818-972-7272. Give me your first name and a city or a state. I like to know who I'm talking to. We've got Kurt Bardella and Carine Hajjar who are back with me.
[23:50:00]
All right, one viewer asks, how would the SAVE Act have prevented a programming glitch? Better yet, how does demanding voter identification prevent a technology glitch? Carine?
HAJJAR: I think, again, this is where things are being conflated. I do think conversations about voter I.D. at the state level are perfectly valid. Again, we know that that's really popular. But the president is trying to create a political issue here. And really, this is about states being transparent, honest with voters when things go wrong.
COATES: All right. John from Gilbert, Arizona, regardless if the mistake was honest or not in New Jersey, it's being addressed three years too late. Kurt?
BARDELLA: Well, it's being addressed by someone who wasn't in office when it happened. So, she is actually addressing it at the earliest possible time that she could have, and I applaud her for doing so in a public, transparent way.
COATES: OK. Joe from California asked this question. Is there a chance that the administration can stop pointing the finger at Biden? Trump spoke of being the be all, end all. At this point, when will everyone recognize that this is on him and only him? So tired of the blame game. Carine?
HAJJAR: Unfortunately, I think blame game is going to continue. Biden administration did it. Now, the Trump administration is doing it. And so, buckle up because this is the political norm these days.
COATES: They've done it a little differently. Let's see. Shonte from Texas says, asking for $67 billion to fund a war with no strategy is beyond diabolical. In the words of Tupac Shakur, we got money for wars but can't feed the poor. That's a great song. Hold on. Right? I mean, that's an amazing song. By the way, trial for the person who has been arrested, who is going to stand trial for his murder comes up in about two weeks. We're going to cover it on All Access out of Las Vegas. Go ahead, Kurt.
BARDELLA: I mean, first of all, the idea that this administration who ran on promising no more wars, ending all the wars, no more good money after bad, needs $67 billion for a war that didn't have to happen, that was on again, off again, won, now it's still going on with no clear end in sight, no objective. Voters have whiplash with that. These are promises that were made to them. And now, he has broken every single one of them, and that ain't Joe Biden's fault.
HAJJAR: Can I say, even though completely agree, totally whiplash, the problem is we still need funding to shore up munitions. These are just critical defense things that we need. So, the president has put himself in a difficult political position, but I think that the defense question is pretty clear here.
BARDELLA: It's a shame that he hasn't used his pulpit like national primetime addresses to explain why these things need to happen.
COATES: Maybe he should keep his head up.
BARDELLA: Oh, I got you. I ain't mad at you.
COATES: OK. Oh! OK. Fine. One viewer says -- this is about data centers. Please ask those who are opposing data centers, will they be OK without Google, Facebook, TikTok, et cetera? Carine? No?
HAJJAR: I mean, look, I think it is a fair question. I think there's a little bit of nimbyism going on. These are things -- it's just going to be a part of our economy going forward. There need to be transparent conversations about how that is done. But if we don't do it here, I think it's a security -- the A.I. race is a security issue, and we need to be clear-eyed about it.
COATES: All right. Let's go to Austin. Michael from Austin asked this question. President Trump calls the situation in Venezuela a war. No one died. He calls the situation in Iran a conflict. Eighteen died. Does he know the difference? Who wants to take it?
HAJJAR: I don't know if the president is always paying attention to how he's defining his terms, to be fair. But, you know, he has been moving the goalposts on this conflict from the beginning. And so, it's not surprising when he's trying to downplay both what he has achieved and what he has not achieved. He continues to move the goalposts because he knows he cannot achieve his original objectives. And so, now, he's trying to move the target so Americans aren't paying attention.
BARDELLA: When we are suffering casualties, it's a war. Period. End of discussion.
COATES: Thank you both, Kurt, Carine. Thank you to all the questions as well that are coming out. We got a lot mor. Next, Hollywood's next big reboot.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast. You know what that means. It's time for Elex Michaelson to take over. It's so good to see you, my friend. All right, look --
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you.
COATES: Look, talk to Hollywood because, every week, it's like another reboot is getting announced, and Hollywood clearly has no shortage of franchises that are getting a second life. You've got "Beetlejuice." You've got "Baywatch." And now, the latest, "RoboCop." Are you all bored?
MICHAELSON: I was not clamoring for "RoboCop."
(LAUGHTER)
All the things. I wasn't thinking. If only there was another "RoboCop." Are you?
COATES: I mean, I'm going to watch it. I don't even remember the -- I mean, I'm trying to remember even the plot of it. I'm going to have to go back and watch the movie now again, just so I can get excited or not excited about it. But I'm going to watch it because I want to know how -- if it still plays well in 2026. But let me ask you this. What's one show or movie that you'd want to see a reboot of? A reboot. I called it a reboot. What's that word? A reboot.
MICHAELSON: A reboot or a redo.
COATES: Yes, whatever.
MICHAELSON: Well, my favorite show of all time is "The West Wing." So, I would love to see a reboot. I know some of the people on there have talked about the possibility of this and updating it. They're still so good together. They're all really close friends. It would be interesting to see with sort of a modern twist and update the storylines. So that would be my pick. What would you like to see?
[23:59:58]
COATES: Well, I wonder if West Wing would be like -- this new administration discussion doesn't make sense in our writer's room. But maybe it will. Who knows?
(LAUGHTER)
I'm going to tell you, I would want a reboot of "Reservoir Dogs." That would -- full disclosure. I was in an all-female cast of "Reservoir Dogs" called reservoir female dogs. The word was actually there. I was Miss Orange. So, have a great show. I'm casting.
MICHAELSON: There's so much more I want to know about that.
COATES: I know.
MICHAELSON: But I guess we'll have to do that for another night.
(LAUGHTER)
Laura, have a good one. Tough to get back on track after that.
