Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Big Tech Bruised but not Beaten After Meta's $17B Settlement; Trump Blames Low Approval on GOP in Congress, Not Himself; Lifelong Texas Republicans Pledge to Vote Dem Over Data Center Concerns. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 26, 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, Big Tech is reckoning. Mark Zuckerberg's Meta settles a historic case over claims of addiction. The former Facebook whistleblower who took the stand will be my guest. Plus, the new curious blame game strategy for President Trump as he risks losing the midterms. Is he really going to throw his own party under the bus? And later, the lifelong Republicans in Texas who say this year, they're breaking ranks and they're voting blue. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live." My opening statement tonight, Big Tech just called uncle in the middle of a trial, the trial that accused them of designing their products to hook kids on their apps. Before Mark Zuckerberg could have the chance to take the stand, they reached a major and historic settlement with the states. We're talking $17 billion over 10 years. But not just about the money, everyone. They've agreed to make some changes, changes that Meta was clearly reluctant to make and could have agreed to before trial. Instead, this comes right in the middle of it, a dramatic capitulation spearheaded by a bipartisan group of attorneys general.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA: I think people will look back and see this moment as that inflection point, that transformative moment, that watershed moment when things changed. But this is 51 states. The District of Columbia and territories all standing together, banding together, holding the line, bipartisan, holding Meta accountable, and making unprecedented historic transformative changes which will echo and permeate throughout the industry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: OK. So, what will change? Well, according to the settlement, teens using Facebook and Instagram will be limited to two hours a day, prompts to pause every 15, 60, 90 minutes, there's a night mode which makes them unable to use the apps from 12 a.m. to 6 a.m., there's school mode and usable from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., kids won't be able to see the number of likes, no makeup filters either, stronger parental controls, and a verification system to ensure that kids are actually old enough to be on the apps. In a statement, Meta said, we want to get this right for parents and teens, and that's why we partnered with states attorneys general to set a new industry standard.

Well, and then comes the money, and this is where the big tobacco comparison you've probably heard so much about starts to fall apart. Big tobacco had to fork up $200 billion over decades. And, in fact, the states who sued Meta wanted the company to pay $200 billion. But this, this is about $17 billion paid over 10 years for a company valued at more than a trillion. And mind you, they raked in $200 billion in revenue just last year.

So, the settlement, it does not destroy the company, far from it, but it's at least a small step forward for parents whose lives were destroyed when their kids were being pulled deeper and deeper into these platforms. Just look at this picture. Look at it. It was taken outside the trial

against Meta when it started. It is parents holding a banner with the names of the children who died from what they claim were social media- related harms, claims that Meta denies.

And I want you to listen to what one of the mothers who spoke that day said. Her name is Lori Schott, and her daughter was 18-year-old Annalee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LORI SCHOTT, MOTHER OF ANNALEE SCHOTT: After we lost Anna, I opened her journals, searching for answers on why a little girl that left a note the day she died that said, I love my family, don't be sad for me, it's not you, it's me. Inside those journals, I found my daughter's pain. And I want to read one entry so people understand the impacts of the design of these platforms and how they impact little girls like my daughter. Annalee wrote, tonight has been one of the worst nights I've had in a while. I was sitting on my bathroom floor telling myself how much I hate myself.

[23:05:00]

Nobody is going to love me unless I look the part. I look at other girls' profiles and it makes me feel worse. Nobody will love somebody as ugly and as broken as me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, yes, Big Tech, they can afford the fine. But tell me, how much is even one life, a beautiful one, worth? My first guest took the stand against Meta in the landmark trial last week. He has previously testified in front of Congress about the dangers of social media. He worked on safety issues of the company for years and interacted with Mark Zuckerberg dozens of times before stepping down in that company and accusing the company of putting profits over the well-being of kids, accusations that Meta denies.

Former Meta employee and whistleblower Arturo Bejar joins me now. Arturo, thank you so much for joining me. You became a whistleblower in part because you saw how your own daughter was harassed on Instagram. What do you think of this settlement?

ARTURO BEJAR, META WHISTLEBLOWER AND FORMER EMPLOYEE: I think it's a big day because Meta gets to take its place right next to big tobacco and opiates as companies that know that their products are harmful and they affect young people. But there are things that are missing in it that are very important.

COATES: Like what?

BEJAR: For example, there really needs to be, what was behind my testimony and my whistleblowing, like a measure of the harm that young people are experiencing so you can know that it's actually effective at reducing the harm. And that's something that, as it's written today, Meta gets to define what harm is, and that, I think, will cause problems on the road.

COATES: They don't have to admit full wrongdoing with this settlement, as you well know. They are making certain changes that we've expressed. But you actually testified that Mark Zuckerberg is not telling the truth when he says the company puts safety over profits. What did you see, Arturo, that led you to believe that? Do you think that he has evolved beyond that?

BEJAR: What I saw firsthand the time I was there was a company where everything was around how many people use a product, how much time they spend on it, and how much money they make. And the entire company is organized around that. And in that world, there's not enough space for safety. It's barely an afterthought.

And so, for years, the company has been doing safety theater in terms of what they've announced or the numbers that they see of harm. And I think that doesn't effectively change right now because as long as Meta gets to define what harm is, they will continue to paint a picture that is deceptive to parents and regulators.

COATES: So, do you think that the time constraints, there's the school mode, there's the night mode, I think it is midnight to 6 a.m., the school mode 8 to 3, then, of course, you've got the limit on the amount of time you can actually be on it, are those arbitrary because it's Meta that gets to determine what the harm is or do those fall in line with what's important or helpful?

BEJAR: Yes. A good way to think about this is while there is goodness in those limits, it's the equivalent of telling kids they can smoke cigarettes for two hours a day because the content is still harmful. The way it's delivered, the way the addictive features work, all that doesn't change in the settlement. And so, they get to have the same harm less time a day.

And until they address the connections with strangers, the things that we know are what's behind the harm in their product design, things are not going to be that much safer, and that's what needs to continue.

COATES: Because the DMs are carved out, for example, right? That's not part of this. BEJAR: Exactly. And that's where my daughter and all of her friends experience unwanted sexual advances. That's where one in eight kids in the last seven days -- that was symmetric. And there's nothing in the consent decree that makes it such that it's easy for a teenager to say when they've experienced unwanted advances from a predator. And until that's possible, how can they even begin to reduce that harm if they won't allow teenagers to tell them when it's happening?

COATES: I read when it impacted your daughter, she reported it, and it said it did not violate community standards or guidelines. Pretty stunning to think about that. Instagram CEO did testify in the trial. Zuckerberg did not. Here's what California Attorney General Rob Bonta said today about the timing of this, though. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BONTA: It's also telling that Meta settled midway through Instagram President Adam Mosseri's testimony and before CEO Mark Zuckerberg could take the stand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:10:02]

COATES: Do you think that he was trying to avoid testifying?

BEJAR: Of course. I mean, every choice that they make and the timing of it has a good reason for it. And I think that when he gets asked about profits and safety, I mean, there's overwhelming internal documentation, the experience of people like myself and many others, which points at a company for whom safety is theater. And so, ultimately, I'm sure he didn't want to testify because of the overwhelming amount of internal documentation that has come out as part of these trials.

COATES: Is it possible in your mind, Arturo, to make social media safe for children?

BEJAR: Yes, it is. But the key behind it is it has to be outcomes- based. Like, Meta has to be accountable for how effective their measures are, not for, like, the different things they try. The moment that Mark Zuckerberg commits to reducing the amount of unwanted sexual advances or negative social comparison on all of the issues that we know are affecting people through these products, it's a few months until those issues are practically eradicated. But without effective measurement so that we know how much it's affecting young people, things are not going to change, and the settlement doesn't address that.

COATES: Arturo Bejar, thank you. We've reached out to Meta in response, but the company did tell "The Guardian" -- quote -- "We have a huge raft of built-in protections. Bejar's comments really ignore that and they also ignore the huge value that teens get from social media in all kinds of ways" -- unquote.

Let's unpack this historic settlement with two experts. Attorney Mark Lanier is representing the state of Arkansas in the case against Meta. He also represented plaintiffs in the first social media addiction case against Meta and YouTube and won. Also with me, CNN media analyst and Axios media correspondent Sara Fischer. Thank you to both of you.

I'll begin with you, Mark. I mean, Meta was in the middle of fighting this case in a trial. The Instagram CEO, Adam Mosseri, had just testified yesterday. Why do you think they chose to end the fight in this way and now?

MARK LANIER, REPRESENTS ARKANSAS IN META SETTLEMENT: I think they were trying to avoid Zuckerberg taking the stand. You know, I crossed him for the better part of a day in February. I'm set to try two more of the victim cases at the end of October where the judge has ordered he has to come back and this time on video. And I don't think he's enjoying putting this testimony down. It's not a fun experience.

COATES: I mean, $17 billion, that's a lot of money, but it's just one percent of the company's value. The Florida A.G. posted today that -- quote -- "trying to wipe out a decade of harm to the nation's youth with one month's cash flow is an insult." Do you think it goes far enough?

LANIER: I don't think that it goes as far as it should. Recognize this is just one of the buckets of plaintiffs. These are the A.G. cases. It doesn't address the tens of thousands and thousands of victims. All of those cases are still pending as are the school district cases. So, we're not done yet. I plan on squeezing them hard.

COATES: Sara, a portion of this settlement is contingent on getting other social media companies to sign on to these protections. Meta is launching a P.R. blitz. They're urging TikTok, YouTube, and others to join, saying -- quote -- "these protections will only be truly effective if we work with our peers." So, they don't want to be singled out, obviously, but will the pressure campaign work?

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST, MEDIA CORRESPONDENT FOR AXIOS: Well, notice that in its initial statement, Meta did not call out Snapchat. And I reached out to Snapchat. They didn't have a comment on this, but I presume it's because Snapchat likely is considering a settlement itself. But I think those other tech companies have incentive to settle. I mean, if you think about it, Snapchat and TikTok both settled in the New Mexico case where Meta was found guilty.

On the number side, Laura, just to put some $17 billion into perspective, when Meta settled with New Mexico, that was around a billion dollars for one state. This is $17 billion, up to $17 billion. Remember, it's only 12 if its peers don't join across 51 different jurisdictions. And so, I can see why there are folks making the argument that this is not a big enough payout.

Now, just to put it in context of global fines against tech companies, I ran that research earlier today. Even though a lot of people say that this is not a lot, historically, this is the biggest thing we've seen. It is a huge landmark that we should be noting. You know, the E.U. has levied major fines against tech companies, in particular Google, and they've been in the low billions. But there's been nothing like this. And so, it actually repositions the United States for the first time as a country that takes tech regulation seriously compared to Europe. We've never really been seen that way throughout the world.

[23:15:00]

COATES: And yet, we're not seeing it congressionally, Mark. We're seeing it through litigation. Is that going to be sufficient --

LANIER: Yes.

COATES: -- if they actually want to have long-term changes?

LANIER: It's going to be interesting. In some ways, I think the court system does a better job. Remember that social media companies have hired one lobbyist for every seven congressional reps. That means they've got 75 people walking the halls of Congress every day trying to stop legislation that would hurt them.

And so, you've got -- I mean, heavens in America, we have trouble passing legislation to do almost anything at all. So, the idea that we're going to control Big Tech when they can pay a billion bucks and stand behind the president at inauguration, I think that's a pipe dream.

So, I am proud of the courts for trying to bring, to bear the pressure of the citizenry of America. That's what courts are. They're the citizens of America who are holding Big Tech accountable.

COATES: Mark Lanier, thank you, Sara Fischer for that research. So important and powerful. Thank you so much, both of you.

President Trump pointing fingers ahead of the midterm elections. Who he says is to blame if Republicans come up short in November. Plus, Bill Gates sounding the alarm about A.I., claiming industry execs know the technology is dangerous and are intentionally downplaying the risks. The brand-new interview you need to hear.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's nothing new for the president to repost attacks on his opponents. But his own party? Today, the president shared a lengthy post on Truth Social from a conservative influencer that lays all the blame for voter frustration on congressional Republicans. Not Trump himself, mind you.

The post reads -- quote -- "I don't think the GOP fully grasps how badly they are effing up right now. I'm talking to people who normally have zero interest in politics who are legitimately pissed off." The post goes on to say, if Republicans in Congress don't start producing tangible results, they're going to discover that frustration has consequences."

But look, this is not the first time that Trump suggested this was the case. Here he was just a few weeks ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Because a lot of them are very angry at Republicans, to be honest with you.

JAKE SHERMAN, JOURNALIST, CO-FOUNDER OF PUNCHBOWL NEWS: Why is that?

TRUMP: I don't know. I mean, they're angry at Republicans, but they're not angry at me.

SHERMAN: It's an interesting thing. Why?

TRUMP: They're not angry at me, but they are angry at Republicans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, executive editor at "The Washington Examiner," Bob Cusack, along with Democratic strategist Yemisi Egbewole. Glad to have both of you here with me. I mean, Bob, let me begin with you here because Trump seems to think the voters aren't mad at him. And that's OK, that's enough for him, it seems. But poll after poll says otherwise. I mean, do you think the voters really see that compartmentalization?

BOB CUSACK, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: I don't think so. I mean, you're already seeing Trump set it up. I mean, Republicans are going to have a tough election. It's just a matter of how bad it is. Are they going to lose the House, the Senate or both?

And a lot of that is also the SAVE Act. He's so frustrated at Senate Majority Leader John Thune for not passing the SAVE Act, not getting rid of the filibuster. Thune has said, listen, we don't have the votes.

So, you know, Trump, when he loses, he never says, well, the buck stops with me, blame me. It's always somebody else's fault, and that's exactly what he's doing here.

COATES: Even on the issue of affordability, which voters care a lot about. I mean, kitchen table issues, bathroom counter issues, and health care costs, et cetera. I mean, the president was asked about the GOP's message on that very issue. And he -- again, he blamed Biden, he blamed the Democrats. Are voters going to buy this come Election Day?

YEMISI EGBEWOLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO BIDEN WHITE HOUSE: Look, midterms are a referendum on the president. It doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican. It's always sending a message back to the White House. I think the president would like to put some distance between the party and himself.

But I do think that Congress has found ways, bipartisan ways, in order to address affordability. I think the housing bill that Senator Tim Scott and Senator Elizabeth Warren did together was a really, really great function of our government. And then the president, all he had to do was sit and sign it, and he refused because of the SAVE Act.

CUSACK: Right.

EGBEWOLE: He gets tunnel vision a lot of times with legislation, also with picking candidates. He had a personal grievance with Senator John Cornyn, who I think would have been, of course, much more competitive than a general in Texas. So, he picks Ken Paxton, which I think is really, really taxing financially on the Republican Party because now he's going to have to use his own money in order to fund this very campaign.

COATES: He's talking about that very thing. I mean, "The Atlantic" is reporting that Trump is planning a midterm ad blitz, probably to your larger point there, focusing on his own accomplishments, not the greater party. It has been described as a backdrop to House and Senate races, including those in Texas. I mean, are Republicans running -- that are running in swing districts, is that going to help at all?

CUSACK: I think it's going to be very difficult, Laura, because it is true. If you look at the president's approval rating, that usually determines it. So, Republicans are trying to do something that's very hard. They're trying to make it a referendum on Democrats. And we saw that in the State of the Union, where he basically saying, these Democrats are crazy. We're going to see that next month in Dallas at this convention where he's going to say, crazy or common sense.

Now, I do think with the rise of DSA, they've got a lot of material. In a lot of ways, Democrats are giving the Republicans a gift. But when Trump says everything is great, that sounds kind of like Joe Biden in 2024, and we know how that ended up.

COATES: You know, I want to go to Iowa for a second because there's a Democrat who seems to be having a lot of momentum right now. His name is Rob Sand. He's running for governor of that state. And he was recently asked a couple of questions about President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. And, well, he did not mince words. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN MARTIN, COLUMNIST, POLITICO: Would you want to have Joe Biden here campaign for you?

ROB SAND, IOWA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: No. Can he even do that right now? I'm sorry.

[23:25:00]

MARTIN: How about Kamala Harris?

SAND: No, thanks. Let's move on. We need some new leadership.

MARTIN: You don't think Harris should run in 2028? SAND: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, yes or no, he said his piece. Are other voters, you think, feeling like this?

EGBEWOLE: I think it's great that Rob Sand was direct, no pivot. He knows how to win in Iowa. Iowa is a red state. And if that is the answer that you need to give to win a competitive race, then that is the answer. I think that a lot of voters are looking for new direction in the Democratic Party. And so, you're seeing people in Iowa that are running. Josh Turek also was asked the same question, had the same response. Mary Peltola said that she is not going to take any donations from the Lower 48.

I love that there are Democrats running to represent their states and filling the identifiers of their states. Not every Democrat lives in Bushwick or Brooklyn. They've got to really, really fit the dynamics.

CUSACK: Yes. And voters like when you say what you think. Trump says what he thinks. He said what he thinks. And other presidential candidates have just dodged that question. I thought it was a great answer.

COATES: Authenticity and affordability. Take note. Bob Cusack, Yemisi Egbewole, thank you both so much.

Bill Gates warning that the A.I. era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history. What he says government should be doing now to prepare. Plus, Texas conservatives breaking rank, pledging to vote Democrat for the first time ever. We'll talk to two of them who say there is one issue influencing their vote.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL GATES, CO-FOUNDER OF MICROSOFT, PHILANTHROPIST: Over the last year, these AIs have gotten dramatically more powerful, even faster than I expected. And they're now capable of causing cyberattack risk, bioterrorism risk, psychosocial risk. And I have to say I'm kind of shocked that the exact criteria that we review these models with and the actions we take to minimize the harms are really completely missing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: An urgent warning for one of the founding fathers of the tech revolution, Bill Gates. He says the turbulent A.I. era is officially here, and the time is now to have a plan that ensures the good outweighs the bad. I want to bring in someone who has long argued for government guardrails on A.I., professor emeritus at New York University, Gary Marcus. He's also the author of "Taming Silicon Valley" and "Marcus on A.I." on Substack. Thank you for joining me tonight, Marcus. I mean, Gates, certainly a household name. Do you believe that that will bring the gravitas needed to try to move the needle on A.I. regulation?

GARY MARCUS, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Every bit helps. He carries, you know, big weight. I hope that people will listen. I've been trying to say basically the same things, as you note, for a long time. We don't really have a plan. I think that's the central message of what he had to say, is we don't know how we're going to make sure that this all works out right.

We know that there are some positives from A.I. For example, it helps coders write faster. And we know there are some pretty serious negatives, ranging from disinformation, deepfake porn to cyberattacks. And it's clear it's not very well controlled. So, he's absolutely right to insist we get a real plan here.

COATES: I mean, there's a lot of anxiety around A.I., as you know. Some of it is driven by the fear that it's going to replace jobs. And you have argued in the past that those fears are valid but overblown. Why are you so confident that human workers are safe for now?

MARCUS: Well, for now. They're not safe forever. I mean, a hundred years from now, probably A.I. will do most things. But, for now, you have to remember that most jobs include many different tasks. And often, A.I. can do some of them really well, some of them not so well, and some of them make stupid mistakes. And so, what most companies are finding is that they're not actually getting that much return on investment because they have to kind of hold the hand, so to speak, metaphorically, of these systems every step of the way.

And so, you know, we've heard for years, like, oh, we're going to replace all the radiologists, and it hasn't really happened. So someday, some of that will happen. But often, humans are able to deal with novelty and the unexpected in a way that these kinds of systems aren't. And so, I think, at least for a while, we're not going to see the sort of job apocalypse that people have described.

COATES: Sam Altman, of course, the OpenAI CEO, he admitted to Time magazine in a new interview, they've made mistakes, like in July when the company's A.I. agents autonomously hacked into another company's servers. But then Altman insists that getting A.I. safety right is more important than any company's momentum. How do you interpret that? And when he says they're putting safety first, can you take him at his word?

MARCUS: I don't take him at his word. You might remember that I testified next to him at the U.S. Senate in 2023. And I feel like I've learned his tricks by now. I know that you can't really take him at his word. You know, he'll tell you one thing, then he'll tell you the opposite. He'll say he's for A.I. regulation, then he'll say he's against it. He'll say AGI is the most important thing, and then he'll say AGI is not that -- artificial general intelligence isn't really that important. He goes back and forth in the things that he says pretty routinely.

The company has not made safety a priority. I think that's why a lot of people who have worked on safety have left. It is also true that what just happened is really embarrassing. They didn't have good enough internal monitoring. It took them a week to find out. And so, of course, he's trying to spin that in as positive a way as possible and say we're going to take safety seriously.

[23:35:03]

Right now, you know, we'll see what the long term is. Also notice, a lot of his employees are leaving. We don't know for sure what that is, but I suspect part of that is about his interaction with employees and trust. Certainly, when he got fired in 2023, trust was a serious issue.

COATES: Gary Marcus, thank you so much. The big question, can Democrats turn ruby red Texas blue? It's a dream that the party has chased for years. This election cycle, there's a new issue that could help turn that dream into a reality. That issue, AI data centers.

Last November, Republican Governor Greg Abbott called Texas the epicenter of A.I. development, putting the state on track to become the world's data center capital by 2030. But as backlash to data centers has intensified across the state, Governor Abbott has changed his tune.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GREG ABBOTT (R), TEXAS: They didn't do their job to get the support of people in local communities. Gaining the support of people in local communities is essential. They've not been working in collaboration with local governments. And so, they basically dug their own grave for the problem that has been caused for them, and that's why they got the backlash they deserve.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Abbott has now paused permits for new data centers. But my next guests say his change of heart is a day late and a dollar short. They're lifelong Texas Republicans planning to do the unthinkable this November, cross party lines to vote for the Democratic candidate for governor, Gina Hinojosa, due to her opposition to data centers.

With me now, retiree Tom Weeks and nurse practitioner Nikki Meador. Thank you so much for both of you being here. I'll begin with you, Tom. What is it about these data centers that made you realize this issue is bigger than party loyalty?

TOM WEEKS, RETIREE, LIFELONG TEXAS REPUBLLICAN PLEDGING TO VOTE FOR DEM: Well, Laura, first of all, thank you. What got me angry, first of all, was the incessant noise coming from these people, the incessant lying. They're not good neighbors. They're damaging people. The Republican Party in this state doesn't care.

We've been fighting this for three years, and we've realized that the Republican Party has given us nothing more than the middle finger. I have been a staunch Republican my entire life. I'm done. Anyone that was in office during this mess that hasn't supported is not going to get my vote.

And amazingly, we've had two Democrats, one absolute running for Congress and one running for governor, that were willing to come out and listen to us. Not the Republicans. The Democrats. And it's just really changed my thinking. And this is a people thing.

COATES: Tom, what you described has been the frustration of so many people. I mean, what you described seems extremely frustrating, and I've heard it across the country. Nikki, do you share that sentiment? I mean, I do want to note that President Trump, he recently warned that pausing data centers in Texas would be, well, a mistake. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: When a community wants it, it means a lot of money is going to come into that community.

SHERMAN: Unsightly, potentially.

TRUMP: Well, I don't think they're unsightly. I mean, I'm looking at some of these data centers, the most incredible buildings I've ever seen. For Texas to say no to data centers is a mistake in the sense that it could be bigger than oil. I mean, data centers could be bigger than oil.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Does the president's pitch appeal to you, Nikki? I mean, if these data centers create jobs or revenues for your community, would you think they're worth it?

NIKKI MEADOR, NURSE PRACTITIONER, LIFELONG TEXAS REPUBLICAN PLEDGING TO VOTE FOR DEM: No. Absolutely. No.

WEEKS: No.

MEADER: No.

COATES: Tell me why, Nikki.

MEADOR: Well, I mean, I don't personally know anybody who wants to live next to that. You know, we ultimately feel unheard by the -- by the Republican nominees, like, everywhere in Texas for the most part. You know, you invest and you vote for people that you think are going to have your best interest at heart, and that is not what is going on right now in the state of Texas.

COATES: Did you think going into this election cycle, either of you, that you would be prioritizing data centers? That would be something that would be so important to you? Did you know this was going to be something that would happen, either of you?

[23:40:00]

WEEKS: No.

MEADOR: No.

WEEKS: Never imagined it.

COATES: Before this issue, what do you think was the most important issue facing you as a Texas Republican voter? Tom?

WEEKS: For me, immigration, the economy, growth, water. Water is a big one here.

COATES: And this data center issue trumps all that for you?

WEEKS: Yes.

COATES: Nikki, for you, what was the biggest issue? Excuse me, Tom. I want to have you finish but, Nikki, what was the biggest issue for you?

MEADOR: Well, prior to this, I was concerned about the school vouchers, honestly. I have school-aged kids, and there has been a big to-do about that as well here in the state of Texas. I mean, honestly, I'm thinking about switching camps completely just because of those two issues, right, the data centers and the school vouchers. Yes, because those are two of the most important things to me. So --

COATES: Tom, has your anger over these data centers, has it made you willing to vote for James Talarico over Ken Paxson as well or is this just about voting against Governor Abbott?

WEEKS: I'm telling you, I would vote for the devil before I voted for Governor Abbott. I've been listening to Talarico. I've been listening to, for the first time in my life, a lot of Democrats. I'm finding that I've been treated very respectful. Abbott is not going to get my vote. He's just spewing rhetoric.

COATES: Nikki, how do you feel?

WEEKS: I think the day after the election --

COATES: Go ahead, Tom. Finish your point.

WEEKS: The day after the election, should he win, it's going to be business as usual. These data centers and Bitcoin mines, they're going to be able to just do whatever they please because that's what they've been doing.

COATES: Nikki, I'll give you the final last word. How do you feel?

MEADOR: I feel the same way he does. I believe that Greg Abbott is just pandering to the Republican rule voters. He knows that he has made people mad. Now, he's kind of scrambling, trying to fix that. But honestly, this is not a red or blue issue. This is an American issue. It affects so many people. COATES: Tom Weeks, Nikki Meador, thank you so much, both of you, for sharing your insight. Really, really important. Thank you.

Up next, tributes continuing to pour in tonight for an American icon, Dolly Parton. Music star Zach Williams shares with me what it was like collaborating with the country queen on the song that would win them both a Grammy.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, of all the tributes to Dolly Parton so far, this one by Miley Cyrus honoring her godmother might hit the hardest. Quote -- "The feeling of losing my Aunt Dolly is beyond what feels right to share. Our most sacred moments were private and they'll stay there behind the stage, beneath the glamour and between our hearts. What I know is Dolly would want me to feel it, write a song about it, and then continue on and be strong. I have an angel by my side. I always have."

Fans from around the world are continuing to honor Dolly, including in the U.K., where she received a tribute made for kings and queens, literally.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: My next guest experienced Dolly's magic up close, collaborating with her on two songs, including this one, which earned Dolly her last ever Grammy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Singer, songwriter, and two-time Grammy winner Zach Williams joins me now. Zach, thank you so much for joining. Your music is so inspirational to so many people. How has Dolly inspired not only you, but that music everyone loves?

ZACH WILLIAMS, SINGER, SONGWRITER, TWO-TIME GRAMMY WINNER: Oh, gosh. I mean, she's amazing. She's one of the most down-to-earth people I've ever met. I can remember just the first time meeting her being so nervous, and just the way she came in and calmed the room and made you feel like you were, you know, important, and took the time to get to know you. I think that for me -- just learning from her. You know, giving everybody the time that they deserve is one thing I've taken away from, you know, just watching her from afar.

COATES: I read somewhere that it was actually your wife who was the one who originally suggested asking Dolly Parton if she would be interested in doing the song, but you thought that was a long shot. What made her say yes?

[23:50:00]

WILLIAMS: Yes. You know, it was kind of one of those things where if you don't ask, you don't know. I had come home with a demo for the song. We were listening to it one night, and my wife said, you should see if Dolly Parton would sing on that, and I was, like, are you serious? And so, I asked my record label, and that was kind of their response, too, like, you don't just pick up the phone and call Dolly Parton.

And so, we got this song, and she told me -- she said, you know, the first time I heard this song, I didn't even -- I didn't even make it through the chorus, I knew it was special, and I wanted to be a part of it. She was a champion from day one for that song.

COATES: Oh, my God. Can you imagine your younger self, that you were going to share a Grammy with the Dolly Parton on one of your songs?

WILLIAMS: No. I mean, it's -- you know, I think everybody -- you know, you can obviously see the impact she has had on everybody in the world. I mean, growing up as a kid, you hear her name, you hear her music. I had grandparents and parents that listened to her songs.

And yes, I mean, it's just -- I grew up in a small town of about 1,200 people and it was definitely not something I ever imagined happening. Even when I started my music career, you know, it was just one of those things. I still pinch myself to know that I played a small part, you know, in her life and she played a big part of mine.

COATES: Can you just describe what it's like when you are performing with Dolly Parton? I mean, when you're watching her in the studio where she got that wonderful voice, what was it like watching her and just seeing what that was like to watch Dolly Parton in action behind the scenes?

WILLIAMS: Yes. I mean, you know, the thing is -- the thing I noticed about her when she came in the day that we worked, you know, I was expecting, you know, maybe 30 minutes, 45 minutes of her time, and I think we were there for about three hours. And every time she would go and do a pass at a vocal, I was like, that's it, that's the one, and she would be like, no, let me have another one. She said, I'm starting to feel it, let me get another one. And when she would hit it, she knew that that was the one.

And she was there strictly to serve that song, you know, and like I said, just champion me. And we became, you know, good friends and stayed in touch over the last six years. I really hated to hear that because it's kind of one of those things you just -- I just thought Dolly would live forever, you know. COATES: You know, when you think about so many people who have all the accolades that she has, you know, the one consistent tune I keep hearing is that she was humble, that she was the person you met on day one and the person you met same way years later. She understood people and seemed to really want to connect.

WILLIAMS: Yes. I think, you know, she just made every room that she was in brighter, you know. That's what I was saying earlier. The one thing I noticed is it didn't matter how many people were there, she was going to take the time to have a conversation with everybody in the room.

COATES: Did your faith contribute to the way that you and Dolly Parton connected?

WILLIAMS: I think so. That was something we talked about a lot. The first day that I met her, we were sharing stories. She was talking about growing up in church and, you know, sharing stories of, you know, being a kid and going to church. And then a few years later, I got to go and be a part of a Christmas movie that she filmed in Dollywood. And she literally had brought the church that she grew up in as a kid log by log and had it rebuilt in Dollywood. And we filmed a Christmas movie there and got to hang out backstage and talk. And it was -- it was just -- it was one of those things where I'm still to this day, I still kind of -- it doesn't feel real.

COATES: Is there a moment that when you work with a new artist, and believe me, Zach Williams, there'll be many artists who will be nervous to have you walk into the room one day, if not already right now, and wondering if you might grace them on their album and on their record? What will you remember to do as if Dolly were there?

WILLIAMS: Oh, gosh. I think just make them feel comfortable. You know, that's the thing. I think so many people, especially when you're working on new music, I think you're always nervous. You know, you want to do well, you want to get your parts right. But, you know, at the end of the day, I think just staying calm and letting them know that they're just as important as you are and this wouldn't be happening without them.

And that's kind of -- that was kind of the thing with her. I was super nervous and she was cracking jokes and making me feel right at home. And so, anything I can do to make them, you know, feel good about themselves.

COATES: Well, here's to her own homegoing. Zach Williams, thank you so much.

WILLIAMS: Yes. Thank you. I appreciate it.

COATES: We'll be right back with a tribute to iconic character actor, Tim Curry.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING) (END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We have another passing to note. Actor Tim Curry has died at the age of 80.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIM CURRY, ACTOR, SINGER: We're trying to find out who killed him, and where, and with what!

CHRISTOPHER LLOYD, ACTOR: There's no need to shout.

CURRY: I'm not shouting! All right, I am. I'm shouting, I'm shouting, I'm shouting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: His flair for playing eccentric characters like the butler Wadsworth in "Clue" won over fans around the world. He started on stage in London before moving to the big screen, landing roles in movies like "Annie" and "Clue." But his big break came when he played the gender bending Dr. Frank-N-Furter in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The movie became a cult classic and Tim Curry's penchant for playing bold and outlandish villainous characters was set. When he was asked why he chose such daring roles, Curry told "The Guardian" last year -- quote -- "I like risky. I would choose risky over anything. That's the best way to be."

[00:00:07]

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